Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock Mr. SPEAKER in the chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

City and South London Railway Bill

London Electric Railway Bill.

Wimbledon and Sutton Railway Bill.

Bills committed.

Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill.

Bill to be read a. Second time Tomorrow.

Port of London (Finance) Bill,

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time.

South Staffordshire Mines Drainage Bill,

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Wallasey Embankment Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, arid to be printed.

PROLETARIAN SCHOOLS.

Mr. GERALD HURST: I beg to present a petition signed by a large number of women voters in the city of Manchester protesting against the seditious and blasphemous teaching of proletarian Sunday schools and soliciting Parliament to prevent it.

Sir W. DAVISON: I beg to present a numerously signed petition from the Kensington branch of the National Citizens' Union protesting against the seditious revolutionary teaching in Communist and proletarian Sunday schools and urging that legislation should be introduced as soon as possible to prevent the poisoning of the minds of the British children.

Mr. HARDIE: Can I present a petition signed by 500 clerical gentlemen in England, generally approving of the Labour party?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice in the ordinary way.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

PITCH.

Mr. MARDY JONES: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total quantity of pitch manufactured in Great Britain in 1922; what was the quantity of pitch exported from Great Britain in 1922; what quantity of pitch was manufactured in South Wales in 1922; and what quantity was exported from South Wales to France and Belgium in 1922?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Viscount Wolmer): According to returns furnished to the Chief Inspector of Alkali, etc. works, the total quantity of pitch produced in the United Kingdom in 1922 was 514,236 tons, of which 16,248 tons were produced in South Wales. The total exports of pitch in 1922 amounted to 428,317 tons. Twenty tons were registered as consigned to France from ports in South Wales. No consignments to Belgium were registered at South Wales ports.

Mr. MARDY JONES: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that France is placed in a specially advantageous position with her supplies of reparation coal from Germany, which she salads with best British small coal, and binds with British pitch to manufacture a cheaper briquette than can be produced in Great Britain; and whether, to prevent the transference of the British patent fuel industry to France, he will take steps to restrict the exportation of pitch to France and Belgium on similar lines to the restrictions on the exportation of scrap iron from this country now in force?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Lieut.-Colonel Lane-Fox): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in thinking that there is any restriction on the export of scrap iron from this country. I am aware that the patent fuel industry is passing through a difficult time, but I do not think that it would be in the interests of industry generally to restrict the export of pitch; nor have I any power to do so without authority from Parliament.

Mr. JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the patent fuel industry of this country, 95 per cent. of which is situated in the South Wales coalfield, is a great asset for the development of industry generally, and uses up some 4,000,000 tons of small coal, which otherwise would be useless, and that a large number of men are unemployed owing to the depression in this industry?

Mr. CLARRY: Is it not the fact that the correct explanation of that is that the patent fuel manufacturers last summer were offered large new contracts for pitch, which they did not accept, and that they are suffering in consequence?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: I am aware of the importance of the industry, but I think that the time has not yet come to adopt the line which the hon. Member suggests. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Clarry), I do not know what are the facts.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We do not hear one word of what you are saying.

Mr. HARDIE: In reference to pitch, is not the position due to the use of the altogether out-of-date system of taking
the gas through the mains, and blowing the dust in such quantities with it that the pitch loses much of its value because of the dust which it contains?

INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL TRADE.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the total value of internal trade and external trade, respectively, in goods produced in Great Britain for the year ended 31st December, 1913, and for the year ended 31st December, 1922?

Viscount WOLMER: I regret that I am unable to furnish the hon. Member with any figures of aggregate internal trade in Great Britain during the years 1913 and 1922 for comparison with the published figures of exports.

BRITISH CAPITAL (INVESTMENT ABROAD).

Mr. NEWBOLD: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange for the publication by his Department, either monthly or quarterly, of statistics showing the investment of British capital in the industrial and commercial undertakings and Government and municipal loans of Germany, Austria, and the other succession States, as well as in Poland and the Baltic States, such statistics to show not only the total so placed but the amount for each industry and type of private or public undertaking?

Viscount WOLMER: I am not in possession of the data necessary for the preparation of the very complicated statistics for which the hon. Member asks.

Mr. NEWBOLD: Would it not he possible that the data should be obtained, seeing that it is so necessary?

Viscount WOLMER: Only at enormous expense.

Mr. NEWBOLD: Could you not cut it out of something else?

COKE EXPORTS.

Mr. GAVAN DUFFY: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, if the s.s. "Agene" sailed during the week ending 2nd March, 1923, from Maryport Dock, Cumberland, carrying 600 tons of coke; if the s.s. "Avigot," during the same period and from the same place, left with 500 tons of coke; can he say what was
the port or ports of destination of these vessels; and can he say at what these cargoes were valued for the purpose of export?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: I am informed that no ships named "Agene" or "Avigot" can be traced as sailing from Maryport during the week ending 2nd March, 1923; but the s.s. "Agate" left that port on the 23rd February with a cargo of 704 tons of coke for Antwerp and the s.s. "Avocet" left on the 27th February with 547 tons of coke for Dunkirk. I regret that I am unable to give information as to the value of the cargoes.

Mr. DUFFY: If these figures cannot be given now how does it come about that the Board of Trade obtain the figures which are given in the statistics regarding the value of exports?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: Because the figures are obtained by the Board of Trade for aggregation and for the collection of statistics, but the Board of Customs never allow the value of individual cargoes to be given.

Mr. DUFFY: If they have not got the individual cargoes how can they give the aggregate?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: I should have said not "given," but "published."

TRADE SHIPS.

Mr. LUMLEY: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the trade ship project; and, in view of the serious state of unemployment in the port of Hull and the fact that the reconditioning of the s.s. "British Trade" is giving employment to 450 men there, and in view also of the advantages which trade in all parts of the country will derive from this venture, whether the Government is prepared to support the project?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): Yes, Sir, the Department of Overseas Trade has been in frequent communication with the promoters of this project. I am in full sympathy with any well-considered scheme for assisting British trade, but it is not possible for His Majesty's Government to give their official support to this or any other particular scheme until they are satisfied that the proposed exhibition
has secured a substantial measure of support from, and is fairly representative of, British industry, and that the whole venture is on a sound footing.

REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES ACT.

Mr. FOOT: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what, was the amount of the loss to the Treasury in the working of the Registration of Business Names Act during the year 1922; and what was the number of firms registered during that year?

Viscount WOLMER: The loss in the working of the Registration of Business Names Act, 1916, during 1922 amounted to £1,475. The number of applications registered during that year was 17,174.

CEMENT.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the British combine of cement-makers makes it a condition that in order to secure the most favourable terms their customers must give an undertaking not to buy cement from any foreign source or from any British maker not in their combine; and whether, seeing that this attempt to crush out all competition by selling at a lower price to those who will give this undertaking than to those who refuse is a practice at variance with the best interest of the community and, in effect, an illegal restraint upon trade, he will say what steps he proposes to take in order to combat this evil practice?

Viscount WOLMER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 3rd November last, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the Noble Lord not prepared to take action to prevent trusts from putting up the price of building material so excessively, on the lines of the Government Inquiry, as suggested some time ago?

Viscount WOLMER: The Government are watching the situation very carefully, but the facts at present in our possession do not lead us to believe that the steps suggested by the hon. Member would be appropriate now.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the Noble Lord aware that under the housing schemes in certain parts of Scotland we were asked to take
cement from a trust in London, whereas we could manufacture it for much less?

Viscount WOLMER: I should be very much obliged if the hon. Member will give us all the information at his disposal.

Mr. HARDIE: We have done so already.

KNITTING MACHINES (EXPORT).

Mr. J. HOPE SIMPSON: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the number and value of knitting machines exported from the United Kingdom in the years 1913 and 1922, respectively?

Viscount WOLMER: The exports of hosiery and knitting machines from the United Kingdom during the year 1922 amounted to 269 tons valued at £155,277. Corresponding figures for 1913 are not available, as hosiery and knitting machines were, in that year, included under the general heading "Textile Machinery."

FLOUR (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).

Mr. EMLYN-JONES: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the quantity of flour exported from this country for the last period for which figures are available, and the quantity of flour imported during the same period?

Viscount WOLMER: During the month of February, 1923, the quantity of wheat meal and flour registered as exported from the United Kingdom was 167,215 cwts., and the quantity registered during the same period as imported into this country was 1,112,491 cwts. The corresponding figures for the calendar year 1922 are 2,329,087 and 13,481,021 cwts. respectively.

COAST EROSIONS, MILLOM.

Mr. DUFFY: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received representations from the Millom Urban District Council on the question of coast erosion; and whether, having regard to the fact that this is a national service, he will consider the question of making it a charge upon the finances of the nation?

Viscount WOLMER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. In reply to the second part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay on 19th February.

Mr. DUFFY: Is the Noble Lord aware of the fact that many of these local authorities have reached their rateable limit and that this national work cannot, will not, and ought not to be done at the expense of the ratepayers?

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: May I draw attention to the fact that in many parts of the country this is a very serious matter indeed, and will the Noble Lord not do something to try to prevent it?

Viscount WOLMER: The matter was carefully considered by a Royal Commission some years ago, and no new reasons have been put forward to depart from the course which they recommended.

Mr. H. H. SPENCER: Has not very very serious damage been done, especially in Lincolnshire, since the Royal Commission sat, and is not that sufficient reason for reconsidering the matter?

Viscount WOLMER: I do not think that the damage done since the Royal Commission sat is more than was done before it sat.

Mr. RICHARDSON: I assure the Noble Lord that it is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

ENEMY DEBTS CLEARING OFFICE.

Mr. GROVES: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will investigate the circumstances attending the discharge of Mr. S. W. Cameron, previously engaged under the Board of Trade in the Enemy Debts Clearing Office, whose leaving certificate stated the reason specifically to be the amount of sick leave the man found it necessary to take; and, as the man is a disabled ex-service man, will he extend leniency, as his sick leave is consequent upon his War service disability?

Viscount WOLMER: I have carefully investigated the circumstances attending the discharge of Mr. S. W. Cameron from
the Clearing Office (Enemy Debts), and I regret that I am unable to alter the decision already reached in this case.

Mr. GROVES: Is the Noble Lord aware that the certificate of discharge stated specifically that it was on account of the sick leave taken, and that the sick leave was due entirely to war services rendered? Does he not think that such action on the part of the Government would be very much against the principle, which is urged on private employers, of giving employment to ex-service men?

Viscount WOLMER: All the clerical members of the staff in that Department are ex-service men. Reductions having been necessary, the decision was come to in the case of Mr. Cameron, in view of all the circumstances of the case.

CIVIL SERVICE.

Mr. JARRETT: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the discharge of numerous ex-service men from the Civil Service at a time when the Joint Substitution Board officially announce that here are over 1,100 substitutable posts; whether 25,000 non-service temporary staff are retained; and, if so, whether, in view of the pledges given that ex-service men he given priority whenever necessary discharges are effected, he will look into this?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): I am aware that a certain number of ex-service men have had to be discharged by various Government Departments on reduction of staff, and that, according to statistics obtained at the end of last year, approximately 1,100 women were employed in posts which were capable of being filled eventually by ex-service men, in so far as the duties were not coming to an end. As I have already explained, in many cases these women are employed upon work which is rapidly terminating, and their replacement by new personnel on the eve of the completion of their tasks would be extremely wasteful. In other cases substitution is proceeding as rapidly as is consistent with the efficient conduct of the business of the employing Department, in view of the fact that these officers are
the residue left of a very much larger number by a continuous and severe process of substitution. Excluding the above women and a very small number of men retained for similar reasons, the non-service personnel temporarily employed in the Civil Service consists almost wholly of women engaged upon duties unsuitable for men. I am satisfied that there has been no departure from the Government's policy of substituting ex-service for non-service personnel wherever possible and of giving every possible preference to ex-service men when discharges are being made.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Can the rigt hon. Gentleman tell me if, in any of these cases where ex-service men are discharged, civilians are put in their places?

Mr. BALDWIN: I could not say that without notice.

Sir J. BUTCHER: What duties are being discharged by women in these services which could not be equally well discharged by ex-service men? Could not, for instance, the duties of typewriting be discharged by disabled ex-service men just as well as by women?

Mr. BALDWIN: I will look into that point, and communicate with my hon. and learned Friend.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is the Ex-Service Civil Servants' Association satisfied with the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. BALDWIN: I really cannot say that without notice.

LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND).

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 81.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health how many ex-service men obtained entry during the year ended Whitsunday, 1922, to small holdings constituted by the Board of Agriculture in the counties of Caithness and Sutherland; how many will have obtained entry during the year ending Whitsunday, 1923: whether any schemes have been approved under which ex-service men will get holdings during the year ending Whitsunday, 1924; and, if so, how many holdings will be constituted under such schemes during that year?

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): The answer to the first part of the question is 55; to the second part 6. Schemes have been approved under which 74 ex-service men will get holdings in the year ending Whitsunday, 1924, provided it is found possible to carry out all these schemes.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give the statistics for all the other counties?

Captain ELLIOT: If my right hon. Friend will put down a question I will give him all the information I can.

MECHANICAL TRANSPORT (WAR SURPLUS).

Captain Viscount CURZON: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government handed over to the Slough Trading Company for disposal, as part of the War surplus under the agreement with the company, dated the 9th April, 1920, all or sonic part of the mechanical transport vehicles and spares of the British forces in occupation of Ireland; how many lorries and cars, and what quantities of spares, were so handed over; on what date those vehicles and spares were declared surplus; and whether the Slough Trading Company were liable to make any and, if so, what payment to the Government for them, in addition to the sum of £3,350,000 originally fixed by the agreement for the purchase of the mechanical transport war surplus?

Mr. BALDWIN: Under the agreement referred to all mechanical transport vehicles and spares surplus in Ireland on the 7th April, 1920, and becoming surplus for two years thereafter, were sold to the Slough Trading Company. I regret that, with the present depleted clerical staff, it is not feasible to undertake the scrutiny of accounts which would be necessary to supply the information required in the second and third parts of the question. As regards the fourth part of the question, the agreement with the Slough Trading Company provides for a share of the receipts for mechanical transport being paid to the Government, when those receipts amount to over £5,000,000. I may add that the sum paid
by the Slough Trading Company for mechanical transport and spares was £3,650,000 not £3,350,000.

Mr. HARRIS: Have other trading companies an opportunity of tendering for these supplies or has this company a monopoly for surplus motors?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would like notice of that question.

Viscount CURZON: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under the contract between the Government and the Slough Trading Company, dated the 9th April, 1920, for the sale of mechanical transport war surplus, the Government are entitled to receive any payments for surplus lorries and stores sold by the company after the 6th April, 1922; and whether he can state the number of lorries and quantities of stores handed over to the company under the agreement and still remaining unsold by the company?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer my Noble and gallant. Friend to the answer that I gave on the 7th instant to the hon. and gallant Member for Hulme (Lieut.-Colonel Nall).

Viscount CURZON: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, in order to prevent the return to America of American-built war-surplus motor lorries, the United States Government imposed a 90 per cent. import tariff upon them: how many of such American-built war-surplus lorries have been sold by the British Government for use in the United Kingdom, and what was the average price realised per vehicle: how many of such lorries remain in the hands of the Disposal Board; and whether he can suggest any method of disposing of them which will avoid the sale by a British Government Department of foreign manufactures in competition with British manufactures?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the question, the preparation of the return called for would necessarily involve a scrutiny of the records of sales spread over a period of four years, and I regret that it is not feasible to undertake
this work with the present depleted clerical staff. With regard to the third and fourth parts of the question, only 265 lorries of American manufacture remain in the hands of the Disposal and Liquidation Commission in this country, and I think my Noble and gallant Friend will agree that the sale of such a comparatively small number of lorries cannot exercise serious influence on the market for second-hand or new lorries of home manufacture.

Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the disposal of all these surplus war lorries is very gravely affecting the British commercial motor vehicle industry, in which there is a large number of men out of work?

Mr. STEPHEN: Could not the right hon. Gentleman get the services of some of the discharged ex-service men at Kew, in order not to have this depleted clerical staff?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise here.

GERMAN CAPITAL (GREAT BRITAIN).

Mr. NEWBOLD: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give particulars as to the amount of German capital lodged in this country with banks and other financial houses under British jurisdiction; and whether he will take steps to ensure either its use to pay in part reparations or else or secure its extradition to the country of origin?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The policy of His Majesty's Government on the subject of reparations has already been made known.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great deal of incorrect argument is based on this assumption, and will he give the information in order to prevent misunderstanding among the public?

Mr. BALDWIN: It would have to be a very rough estimate.

Mr. SAMUEL: Would not even a rough estimate be very much better than to have a lot of incorrect information in circulation?

INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE.

Mr. TOUT: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a statement that during the year 1922 10,000,000 industrial assurance policies were lapsed, upon which not less than £20,000,000 had been paid in premiums all of which had been lost by the holders of these policies; and whether, under the circumstances, he would have an inquiry into this matter, as it appeared from the published statement of accounts of the various companies that the shareholders had been dividing amongst themselves dividends and bonuses of 50, 60, and 80 per cent. and over, and that such profits were contributed to very largely by the premiums paid on the lapsed policies of the unemployed?

Viscount WOLMER: The answer to the first part of this question is in the negatice. A Committee, appointed in the year 1919, of which Lord Parmoor was the Chairman, considered the question of lapsed policies among other matters relating to industrial assurance, and made certain recommendations on the subject. Provisions to give effect to these recommendations were included in a Bill introduced in another place, which was read a Third time on the 8th March. In these circumstances I think no useful purpose would be served by a, further inquiry.

Mr. HANNAN: Is the Noble Lord aware that many of these companies and societies have not yet had an annual meeting? How, then, can the information and statistics alleged in the question be available?

LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES.

Mr. SHINWELL: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Report of the advisory committee on life-saving appliances is completed; and whether it is proposed to lay the same before the House?

Viscount WOLMER: The Report of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee is now being printed and will be published very shortly.

Mr. SHINWELL: When the Report is published will opportunity be furnished to this House to discuss the recommendations of this Committee?

Viscount WOLMER: That question should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

ALUMINIUM HOLLOW-WARE.

Mr. J. H. SIMPSON: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the value of the imports of aluminium hollow-ware, during the six months ending 31st December, 1922, from Poland and Germany, respectively?

Viscount WOLMER: The declared values of imports of aluminium hollowware (domestic) registered during the six months ended December, 1922, as consigned from Poland and Germany, were
from Poland (including Dantzig), £36;
from Germany, £104,141.

Mr. SIMPSON: Does this refer to enamelled or painted aluminium ware?

Viscount WOLMER: It is classified as aluminium hollow-ware. Whether it is painted or enamelled I do not know.

Mr. HARDIE: Is a spoon hollow-ware?

TABLE GLASSWARE.

Mr. SIMPSON: 18.
further asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the value of the imports of table glassware, during the six months ending 31st December, 1922, from Belgium and Germany, respectively?

Viscount WOLMER: Table glassware is not separately recorded in the trade statistics, but is included under the heading "Domestic and fancy glassware." The declared value of the imports into the United Kingdom of domestic and fancy glassware registered during the six months ended 31st December, 1922, as consigned from Belgium and Germany, amounted to £223,661 and £89,856 respectively.

Mr. SIMPSON: Does not the Safeguarding of Industries Act protect the Belgian glass against the Germans?

Viscount WOLMER: I do not think so.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Is it not protection offered in a quarter where it is not needed and denied in a quarter where it appears to be urgent?

LACE INDUSTRY, NOTTINGHAM.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he still refuses to acknowledge the claim of the Nottingham lace industry to be included in the Safeguarding of Industries Act; and, if so, what alternative proposal he is prepared to make to relieve this industry from the disastrous effects of the economic condition of Europe?

Viscount WOLMER: I would refer my Noble Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe yesterday.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: As the reply referred to did not answer my question, may I ask why the Government refused to give protection under the safeguarding of Industries Act to the lace industry, having regard to the fact that the lace industry has clearly established its claim to be included in the Act?

Viscount WOLMER: If my Noble Friend will look at the reply to which I have referred him, he will see that the point was dealt with fully by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. HARRIS: Is it suggested that this is a key industry?

BRITISH MUSEUM (FEES).

Sir CYRIL COBB: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that under present conditions parties of elementary school children, accompanied by their teachers, are in the habit of making educational visits to the British Museum during school hours without any cost in respect of admission; that these facilities may be endangered if Clause 9 of the Fees (Increase) Bill becomes law; and whether he will give an undertaking that the regulations to be made by the trustees of the Museum, with the consent of the Treasury, shall make provision for the continued free admission of school children, accompanied by their teachers, on approved educational visits to the Museum on all school days?

Mr. BALDWIN: At national galleries and museums where entrance fees are already imposed the practice has always been to admit such organised parties of school children without charge of any
kind by arrangement with the director. Power to make similar arrangements will certainly be taken in any regulations relative to admission fees at the British Museum and Natural History Museum. I may add that at national galleries and museums where entrance fees are already charged, the director issues at his discretion free passes at any time to persons regularly using the collections and libraries for purposes of study or research. The same discretion will be enjoyed by the Directors of the British Museum and the Natural History Museum.

Mr. NEWBOLD: Will it also have reference to the institution described by the late Clerk of the House as a museum of historical antiquity, namely, the House of Commons?

Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the fact that the amount collected by fees charged for entrance to the British Museum will be very small, and that it will go to the Treasury and not to the British Museum, will the Government abandon the proposal to charge fees?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am thankful for all contributions, however small.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

EX-OFFICERS (EMPLOYMENT IN RUHR DISTRICT).

Sir W. DAVISON: 25.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether persons temporarily employed in the Army during the War, and who have received their discharge without pension, require the permission of the War Office before accepting service under the French Government in connection with their occupation of the Ruhr; and whether, in the event of such permission being required, he can assure the House that no difficulties will be placed in the way of officers who desire to tender their services as above?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part does not therefore arise.

Sir W. DAVISON: Do I understand that if such a letter, refusing permission
in a case such as that suggested, was sent, it was sent in error, and that no permission was needed?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I have not seen this case, but if the ex-officer is neither in the Army nor the Reserve the War Office have no control over his action, and are in a position neither to withhold nor give permission.

ARMY PAY CORPS.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: 27.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will explain why M. Meaney, Army Pay Corps, a life pensioner (6th December, 1919, Chelsea Commissioners), ceased to he entitled to his life pension; and what is the Army Regulation which provides for such cancellation?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut. - Colonel Jackson): Mr. Meaney was granted in December, 1919, a service pension of 8d. a day under Army Order 330 of 1918, as he had 14 years' service, and it was thought that his temporary disability pension from the Ministry of Pensions would be made permanent. In June, 1922, his disability had fallen below 20 per cent., and he ceased to be entitled to a separate disability pension and therefore to the Chelsea pension under Army Order 330 of 1918. He was, however, awarded a permanent pension of 8d. a day for service and disability combined under Article 1163 of the Pay Warrant of 1914. The answer to the last part of the question is, Army Order 330 of 1918.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: Am I not correct in saying that a life pension was granted to him by the Chelsea Commissioners, and that there was no condition or qualification whatsoever?

Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON: I think that that is answered in the reply which I have given.

Lieut. - Colonel HODGE: 43 and 44.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office (1) how many officers have been transferred from other corps or regiments to the Royal Army Pay Corps since the Armistice; how many of those officers so transferred are either chartered or incorporated accountants;

(2) how many regular commissions have been granted in the Royal Army Pay
Corps since the Armistice; and how many of those who have received such regular commissions, excluding those to officers transferred from other corps or regiments, are either chartered or incorporated accountants?

Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON: The number of new commissions granted is 36, and the number of officers transferred is 14. Out of these numbers, 4 officers and 1 officer respectively were chartered or incorporated accountants.

Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: Is it considered to be in the interests of sound financial administration that men should be transferred from a combatant arm of the Service to an important financial department of the Army?

DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.

Mr. FRANK GRAY: 28.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the, continued high cost of living, he will consider the postponing to a later date than 1st April next of the reduction of 1s. 6d. per week from the allowance to the dependants of serving soldiers which is likely to cause great hardship?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Under Army Order 357 of 1920 the rate of marriage allowance varies according to the cost-of-living index figure, which will be 80 for next year as compared with 90 at present. I cannot undertake to suspend, as proposed, the normal operation of this rule, but I would point out that the reduction of 1s. 6d. quoted by the hon. Member operates only on the high total allowance admissible when the number of children is five or over. For a wife only, no reduction will be made.

ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (OFFICERS'UNIFORM).

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 29.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps stationed at Woolwich have recently received special orders from the Director-General of Army Medical Services prohibiting these officers from wearing slacks when performing dismounted duties, and adding that they shall, when in uniform, always wear riding-breeches, top-boots or gaiters, and spurs; and whether, seeing that of all the units stationed at Woolwich the Royal
Army Medical Corps is the only one which has been singled out for this order, and that other arms performing dismounted duties generally wear the slacks objected to by the Director-General of Army Medical Services, he will state the reasons for this order?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: No orders on this subject have been issued by the Director-General of Army Medical Services. The general rule however in all branches of the Service is that breeches with leggings or puttees are worn on parade and in public, whilst slacks may be worn in barracks at the discretion of the commanding officer. I am informed that a few officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps at Woolwich sonic time ago adopted the practice of wearing slacks in public, and that the only action taken by the Director-General in the matter consisted in unofficially drawing attention to the laxity of dress which had been noticed.

Mr. HARDIE: Cannot the difficulty be overcome by asking them to wear kilts?

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Will these sartorial elegancies increase the medical or surgical efficiency of the officers concerned?

SWIMMING INSTRUCTION.

Mr. BRIANT: 31 and 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) if his attention has been called to the boating accident at Dundrum, County Down, on 4th February, when eight soldiers were drowned; if he has information as to the number of the deceased men who could swim:

(2) if he will make inquiries as to how far the King's Regulations, paragraphs 713–715, regarding the teaching of swimming, are carried out; if he is aware that at many stations where swimming facilities exist the Regulations are practically ignored; and if, in the interests of the health and efficiency of the men, he will see that orders are given for commanding officers to carry out the Regulations?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: My attention has been called to the distressing accident at Dundrum, and I understand that of the eight soldiers drowned two could not swim. The general Regulation is that swimming will be taught at all stations where facilities exist, and I am not aware that this rule is disregarded.
If, however, the hon. Member will give me more specific particulars, I will inquire further. The facilities and opportunities at different stations naturally vary.

Mr. BRIANT: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make special inquiries as regards Aldershot, where there are ample swimming ponds, and find out how far the Regulations are carried out there?

STOBBS ESTATE, ROXBURGHSHIRE.

Sir THOMAS HENDERSON: 33.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War what was the original cost of the estate of Stobbs, Roxburghshire, which was acquired for military purposes: what is the most recent valuation of the property; and what is the annual income and the average annual expenditure on the property, including administration, during the last five years?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The answer to the first part of the question is £50.000, and to the last part, income £1,246, expenditure approximately £1,200. There has been no recent valuation.

RANKER OFFICERS (PENSIONS).

Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOK: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that there are such anomalies as that of a lieutenant-colonel who was awarded the D.S.O., who commanded a unit at the front for some years, and is now receiving a sergeant's pension of 30s. a week, as against a lieutenant of the Royal Marines who served as an officer for a less period than two years and is now receiving retired pay exceeding £5 per week; and whether he will agree to the formation of a Committee to consider the whole question of ranker officers' pensions?

Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave on the 27th February to the hon. and gallant Member for Blackpool. I am not prepared to agree to the setting up of a Committee on this question.

STAFF IN EGYPT.

Captain MOREING: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War the number of officers on, or attached to, the staff in Egypt on the 1st February, 1913, the 1st November, 1922 and the 1st February, 1923?

Lieut. - Colonel GUINNESS: The numbers respectively are 13, 55 and 51.

Captain MOREING: Does the hon. and gallant. Gentleman not consider the last figure as showing a somewhat excessive number of staff officers?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The figures have been brought down very much since November, 1920, when it was 119, and the high figure is due to the increase in the number of troops as compared with the pre-War number and the disturbed state of the country.

Major PAGET: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman prepared to issue a statement showing what are the duties of these officers?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I should like notice of that.

DRILL HALL, NEWPORT (MON.)

37. Mr. MARDY JONES: asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the women's section of the Newport Labour party made an application to the officer in command of the 1st Monmouthshire Regiment at the drill hall, Newport. (Mon.), for the hire of the drill hall for a sale of work, and that their application was refused on the ground that the drill hall could not be let for charitable or trade purposes; whether he is aware that, despite the reason given for the refusal, the drill hall has in fact been frequently let for chapel bazaars, for boxing contests, and for trade shows; and will he make inquiries into the matter?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I have made inquiries, and I understand that the refusal was in accordance with the consistent policy of the battalion, which is not to let the hall to any political party in any circumstances. I am not in a position to interfere with the discretion of the local authorities in the matter.

Mr. JONES: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware as a result of his inquiries that this hall has been let for party purposes, and for purposes contrary to the conditions set out in the refusal given on this occasion?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I am not aware of that. I made inquiries, and I am told it has only been let. for the purposes mentioned in the hon. Member's
question, namely, charitable or trade purposes.

Mr. CLARRY: Is the Under-Secretary for War aware that during the last 25 years this hall has never been let to any political organisation whatever?

BRITISH AND FRENCH MILITARY MISSIONS.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War the number and rank of the officers composing the British Military Mission in Paris, and the number and rank of the officers composing the French Mission in London?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The British section of the Allied Military Committee of Versailles consists, at the present time, of four officers, namely, one Major-General, who is also Military Attaché accredited to France, Spain and Portugal, two Lieutenant-Colonels and one Captain. There is also an assistant Military Attaché a Brevet Lieutenant-Colonel, who is occupied entirely on the normal duties of a Military Attaché
The French Military Mission, in London, is composed of one Général de Brigade (Major-General), Military Attaché, one Lieutenant-Colonel, assistant Military Attaché, one Captain, assistant to the Military Attaché.
The relative strength of the British and French Missions is not comparable, as the French Mission, in London, is occupied solely on Military Attaché's duties, whereas the British Mission in Paris is a section of the Allied Military Committee of Versailles with special duties.

Captain EVANS: Is the French General who was attaché to the French Mission in London last week still on the strength or has he gone back to barracks?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I informed the hon. Member last week that this officer was a full General because I went by the Foreign Office list and I am afraid the Foreign Office does not take quite the same notice of military details as the War Office. As a matter of fact, this officer was the Military Attaché.

Major PAGET: Is the Major-General in Paris paid at the rate of a Major-General or as an ordinary attaché?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I should like notice of that question.

STAFF (CONSTANTINOPLE),

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 39.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War what were the number of staff officers, and the rank of these officers, employed on the staff of the Commander-in-Chief in Constantinople, and attached to this staff, on the 20th December last?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: As the detail of ranks and numbers would take some time to read, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the detail:

The number of staff officers and attached officers at General Headquarters, Constantinople, and their ranks according to the January Army List, is:


Lieut.-General
1


Major-General
2


Colonel on the Staff
2


Colonel Commandant
1


Colonel
5


Lieut.-Colonel
6


Major
11


Captain
10


Subaltern
3



41

if the following are included (Intelligence Corps, Allied Police Commission, Sub-Commission of Disarmament, Turkish Gendarmerie, Inter-Allied Commission of Special Elements and Liaison Sections, Ottoman War Office, and Constantinople Base) the figures are:


Lieut.-General
1


Major-General
2


Colonel on the Staff
2


Colonel Commandant
1


Colonel
6


Lieut.-Colonel
9


Major
16


Captain
38


Subaltern
31



106

MILITARY MISSION (POLAND).

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 40.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War what is the personnel of the British military mission in Poland at the present time: and for how long this mission will be continued?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The personnel of the British military mission in Poland at the present time consists of
Three officers,
Four other ranks, and one locally engaged interpreter.
The mission is being withdrawn on 31st March, 1923, and replaced by a military attaché.

WAR OFFICE REGISTRY.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 41.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War what are the duties of the Department of the War Office Registry and the total personnel of each grade, and the cost of this Department, now and in 1913?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: As the answer to this question is very long, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The numbers by grades of the Registry staff in 1913 and at present are as follows:—


1913.


Grade.
No.


Chief Examiner
1


Staff Clerk
1


Second Division, Higher Grade
14


Second Division
13


Assistant Clerk
7


Boy Clerk
3


Principal Presskeeper
1


Assistant Principal Presskeeper
2


Established Presskeeper
22



64


1923.


Grade.
No.


Senior Staff Clerk
1


Staff Clerk
1


Higher Clerical
7


Junior Executive
1


Second Division, Higher Grade
1


Clerical Officer
34


Temporary Clerk (Ex-Soldiers)
50


Copyist
1


Principal Presskeeper
1


Assistant Principal Presskeeper
2


Established Presskeeper
22


Temporary Presskeeper
11



132


 (including 9 to be released by the end of March).

Excluding those about. to be released, the present staff of the Registry is less than twice the size of the staff in 1913, despite the fact that the volume of incoming correspondence received in the office—over which the Department can exercise no control—is still more than twice the pre-War volume and amounts to well over a million letters a year.

The total cost of the staff in 1913 was£11,297. The cost at the present time is £31,662 inclusive of bonus.

The duties of this Central Registry, which serves the whole office, are as follows:

Receipt, registration and distribution of letters etc.—Despatch of letters, books and parcels. Daily record of transit of registered papers. Custody of registered papers. Index of important decisions. Despatch of correspondence for Military Commands and for Missions abroad. General correspondence with General Post Office on postal etc. matters. Weeding of War Office papers with a view to the destruction of those now obsolete. Encoding, decoding and distribution of telegrams.

In addition to the above staff, there is a small temporary section of retired civil servants re-employed who are engaged in the task of weeding the very large number of papers which have accumulated during the War.

AIR SERVICE (BREVET RANK).

Major YERBURGH: 42.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the grant of appropriate brevet rank to those regular officers of the Army who were seconded for service with the Royal Air Force during the recent War and who were accorded special promotion in that force in the various honours lists?

Lieut. - Colonel GUINNESS: The services rendered by such officers whilst serving with the Royal Air Force will not be overlooked, but I do not think the course suggested would be expedient. The grant of honours and rewards for War services ceased some time ago.

LIEUT.-PAYMASTERS (PAY AND ALLOWANCES).

Lieut.-Colonel J. HODGE: 65.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office
what is the total amount per annum of the pay and allowances received by a lieutenant-paymaster holding a regular commission in the Royal Army Pay Department whilst stationed at home?

Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON: The total amount per annum of the pay and allowances of a. lieutenant and paymaster stationed at home is £468 (single) and £534 (married).

Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the average pay in a City of London office to-day for a duly qualified chartered accountant is £250 per annum, and has he considered, in the interests of his Department, that Commissions in the Royal Army Pay Corps should be given only to men qualified in view of the high salary given?

Major MALONE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the hon. and gallant Member who has just put the question was himself on officer in the Army Pay Corps?

Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: What on earth has that got to do with the question?

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps that question had better be put to the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Malone) outside the House.

UNITED SERVICES FUND.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if, in view of the fact that the United Services Fund have no copies of their charter available for distribution, he will cause a copy to be laid upon the Table of this House?

Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON: I do not think that the charter need be reprinted as a Parliamentary paper, but I will certainly see that copies are placed in the Library for the information of Members.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the accounts of the United Services Fund in respect of the payments made by local area branches are audited and, if so, by whom; and if any audit is conducted in connection with the distribution account of the head office at 29, Cromwell Road?

Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON: As has been explained to the House before, the United Services Fund was formed by Royal Charter, and its council of management is not responsible to the War Office. I am therefore not in a position to answer for them on the points raised in this question. I would suggest reference to the head office of the fund.

FRANCE AND RUHR DISTRICT.

Mr. AUBREY HERBERT: 30.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will give the House all information in his Department with regard to the progress of the French occupation of the Ruhr?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: No, Sir. I cannot deal with such a subject within the limits of a Parliamentary answer.

WOMEN FRANCHISE.

Mr. FOOT: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if it is his intention to introduce a Bill giving to women the franchise on the same conditions as it applies to men, both as to age and otherwise?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): The answer is in the negative.

REAL PROPERTY LAW.

Mr. FOOT: 46.
asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to introduce the Bill to consolidate the law relating to real property?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): I have been asked to reply. A series of Bills will be required and are in preparation. Owing to the intricate and technical nature of the subject it is impossible to hurry their completion and consequently I am unable to fix a date for their introduction.

Mr. FOOT: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that an assurance was given that a Consolidating Bill would be passed and that it is of the highest importance that such a Measure should be passed during the present Session?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I quite recognise that it is desirable to pass these
Bills as soon as possible, but I think the House will agree it is also important that they should not give rise to ambiguity.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us, which Act passed by this House has not been ambiguous?

FISH (DESTRUCTION).

Mr. BRIANT: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the repeated statements that large quantities of fish are destroyed at various fishing ports and harbours owing to the lack of transport facilities and the high cost of transit, he will appoint a Committee to inquire into the whole question of the fish supply in order that the waste of so much valuable food may be prevented?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): I have been asked to reply. I am aware that considerable quantities of fish have from time to time been destroyed or thrown back into the sea. This rarely occurs at the principal fishing ports, where regular landings take place, but generally happens at the minor fishing stations as a consequence of occasional landings of abnormal quantities or fish such as herring, mackerel, sprats and pilchards. It is not possible to anticipate these events nor is it practicable to prepare adequate transport facilities to cope with them. As regards railway transport, there have been two recent reductions in the rates charged for fish and very few complaints have been received by my Department for some time either that lack of railway facilities or high cost of transit prevents the supply of fish normally landed at the recognised fishing ports from reaching the public. In these circumstances I scarcely think it would be advisable to appoint a Committee to inquire into this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HERITABLE PROPERTY LAW.

Mr. MAXTON: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if he has received a copy of a resolution from the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce requesting the Government to pass legislation with a view to simplifying the transfer of heritable property in Scotland and amending the law of succession;
and if he proposes to accede to this request?

Captain ELLIOT: I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. My Noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland will be glad to proceed with this Meausre if opportunity arises.

Mr. MAXTON: Is an opportunity likely to arise during this Session?

Captain ELLIOT: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

WHALING (SHETLAND).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 68.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that the prosecution of the whaling industry in Shetland has resulted in the closing down of the herring fishing stations throughout the west side of Shetland; that no stations will re-open so long as whaling is permitted; that there has been a consequent loss of capital to curers and of wages to fish workers; and if he will state what further evidence he requires to satisfy him that whaling is prejudicial to the herring industry?

Captain ELLIOT: My Noble Friend is aware that the closing down of curing stations was due in part to the decline of the herring fishing on the west side of Shetland, but the question at issue is whether such decline was caused by the prosecution of the whaling industry. As regards the reopening of stations, I would remind the hon. Member that a few stations were opened last year, and that part of the west side catch of 35,000 crams was landed at these stations. My Noble Friend is aware that the closing of stations has resulted in loss to curers and fishing workers. It is impossible to specify in anticipation what circumstances may occur in future to justify a decision that whaling is prejudicial to the herring fishery. The case hitherto put forward is substantially that in the period before the War the development of the whaling industry and the decline of the herring fishery were coincident in point of time. My Noble Friend considers that evidence or experience showing a causal relation between the fortunes of the two industries would be of consequence.

Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that there was no reason at all for passing the Act which was passed by the last Parliament?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: What is the specific cause of complaint against the whales? Is it that the cutting up and curing of the whales pollutes and fouls the water, or is it that the hunting of the whales chases away the herring shoals?

PORT SETON HARBOUR.

Major WARING: 69.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware that the absence of adequate harbour accommodation at Port Seton adversely affects the coal industry as well as the fishing industry; that coal has now to be taken to Leith at a cost of 2s. 1d. per ton, and if adequate facilities were provided at Port Seton the net realised price of coal would be increased by that amount, and both owners and miners would benefit accordingly; and whether he will recommend the adoption of the scheme of enlargement to the Development Commissioners?

Captain ELLIOT: The subjects of transport, working costs, and prices in the coal industry do not fall within the province of my Noble Friend's Department, and he is, therefore, unable to express any opinion on the matters referred to in the first two parts of the question. I am informed that any application which might be made by the Harbour Commissioners for assistance from the Development Fund could only be considered by the Development Commissioners in so far as its object was the development and improvement of the fisheries.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is not the question of the development of trade in Scotland a matter for the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department?

Captain ELLIOT: The question of the coal trade is obviously not specifically a question for the Secretary for Scotland; this is the spending of Government money for a particular object which does not some within the authority of the Secretary for Scotland.

Mr. SHINWELL: Do I understand that in the application of the Development Fund to Scotland, no part of the money can be used for the development of harbour accommodation?

Captain ELLIOT: No part of the money can be used for the development of harbour accommodation for the coal trade, it can be used for the development of harbour accommodation for the fishing industry.

Major WARING: Would this not develop the fishing industry for these honest people?

Captain ELLIOT: In so far as the development of the harbour would include, or provide, facilities for the herring fishing, the charge would be one properly falling on this Fund; in so far as it would assist the coal trade, which is, I understand, the contention of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Linlithgow, it would not properly be a charge upon this fund.

LAND COURT.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 72.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether, seeing that the Member recently appointed by him to the Scottish Land Court is proprietor of a landed estate in the North of Scotland and a director of a soft-goods store in Glasgow and that with one exception all the members of the Scottish Land Court are landlords, he will say whether they are permitted to adjudicate on the question of fair rents in the counties where their landed estates are situated; and whether he will now consider the appointment of a member more representative of the interests of small landholders and with a knowledge of the Highlands, the people, their language, and aspirations, so as to establish this tribunal in the confidence not only of landlords but also of small landholders?

Captain ELLIOT: I am informed that the member recently appointed is proprietor of a small landed estate in Caithness and that the two of her agricultural members were tenant farmers who have purchased their farms. The first-mentioned member was formerly a director of a firm of warehousemen in Glasgow, but retired from that office some months ago. In the allocation of cases care is taken to ensure that no member shall adjudicate on any application in which he is in any way interested. The importance of securing a member well qualified to discharge the duties was fully in view by my Noble Friend in making
the last appointment, and he will have regard to the same considerations in making any future appointment.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the gentleman to whom reference is made in this question is a Highlander belonging to one of the principal clans in Sutherlandshire, that he has a full knowledge of the language and of the interests of the people, and that this appointment was warmly welcomed by the people of Caithness and Sutherland, and by none more than by the small landholders?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is what the Minister has said.

By which Cruiser detected.
Number of Detections.
Locus.
Port to which Vessel taken.
Results of Trials.


"Brenda"
…
…
1
Off Haddingtonshire Coast.
Leith
…
…
Not yet tried.


"Freya"
…
…
2
(a) Off Buchanness.
Peterhead

…
Fined £80 or 60 days.




(b) Off Brora.
Charged at sea

…
Not yet tried.


"Minna"
…
…
1
Loch Roag
Stornoway

…
Fined £100 or 60 days.


"Vigilant"
…
…
2
Firth of Clyde, off Great Cumbrae.
Charged at sea


(a) Pined £10 or 26 days.






(b) Fined £50 or 40 days.

Viscount CURZON: Is it not the fact that these vessels are quite inadequate to afford that protection it is their duty to do because of their insufficient speed?

Captain ELLIOT: I do not think that question arises out of the answer.

Mr. J. JONES: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Battersea can tell them about speed!

DEER FOREST, KINTAIL (ARBITRATION).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 73.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware of recent arbitration proceedings to determine a claim by a landlord from Kintail, Ross-shire, against the nation for compulsory grazing of sheep in his deer forest during the War, and consequent frightening of deer on his lands; whether the arbiter, who in the case is a sheriff-principal, is to receive, or has received, any extra remuneration out of national funds; whether he is aware that two King's counsel, two advocates,

ILLEGAL TRAWLING.

Major WARING: 71.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health which cruisers were concerned in the detection of illegal fishing in February last, and in which waters; into which ports were the captured vessels taken; whether prosecutions were instituted; and, if so, what penalties were imposed?

Captain ELLIOT: As the reply to my hon. and gallant Friend's question can most conveniently be given in the form of a tabulated statement, I propose, with his permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

and half-a-dozen other lawyers, two duke's commissioners, and numerous other partially employed factors and gamekeepers were engaged for seven days to ascertain what degree of fright and injury was occasioned to this landlord's deer by the sheep grazing on his forest; why the nation's interest was not represented at this inquiry by Crown counsel or agents, and why this claim was not submitted to the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission; and what is to be the total cost to the British taxpayer in connection with this alleged injury to deer and the consequent arbitration proceedings?

Captain ELLIOT: With regard to the first part of the question, I am aware of the proceedings referred to which arose out of claims for compensation for alleged diminution of letting or selling value of the deer forest which was compulsorily stocked with sheep. In answer to the second part, the arbiter did not act in his official capacity as a sheriff-principal, and
his remuneration as arbiter will form part of the arbitration expenses. With reference to the third part, the number of persons engaged on behalf of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland was kept as small as the importance of the case would permit. My Noble Friend has no control over the numbers engaged on behalf of the claimants. With reference to the fourth part, the national interest was represented by the counsel acting for the Board of Agriculture. In answer to part five, reference to the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission would not have been competent, as in law such claims, failing agreement, must be settled by arbitration before a single arbiter. I am unable at present to answer the last part of the question, as the arbiter has not yet issued his award.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the Under-Secretary for Scotland make inquiries and so put himself in possession of information that will enable him to answer the other part of the question; he says he is unable to answer it?

Captain ELLIOT: I am unable to answer it because the facts are not as yet published. I do not know the answer because the answer is not known to anybody.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that a great many ex-service men desire to be settled in that particular part of Ross-shire, and now that the arbitration is over will he see to it that a settlement is speedily effected?

Captain ELLIOT: No doubt any further developments will be carefully watched.

DEVELOPMENT FUND.

Major WARING: 70.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health the amount of money now standing to the credit of the Development Commissioners?

Mr. BALDWIN: Excluding the Corn Repeal moneys and a gift from the Red Cross for specific purposes, the balance on the Development Fund on the 10th instant was £400,375, including cash and investments at cost price. There are, however, considerable commitments to be set against this sum; and, as the hon. and gallant Member will observe from the
Estimate for the Vote on Account, it has been found necessary to ask Parliament to vote a further sum of £250,000 in 1923–24.

RENT ARREARS, GLASGOW.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 74.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he is aware that a large number of tenants are being brought before the Glasgow Sheriff Court for arrears of rent and that they cannot afford to get the legal assistance necessary to defend them; and will he take such steps as will allow a tenant summoned to be defended by a person other than a solicitor?

Captain ELLIOT: I am aware that the number of actions for non-payment of rent is large; as regards the ability of the tenants in question to pay for legal assistance I have no information. Parties may appear in the Small Debt. Court, in which actions relating to sums not exceeding £20 are usually raised, by themselves, by any member of their family, or by any person whom the Sheriff permits.
I would also remind the hon. Member that the law already makes provision for legal assistance to poor persons. In these circumstances it seems unnecessary to take further steps in the direction suggested in the last part of the question.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these persons are mostly summoned for being unable to pay rent owing to unemployment and if they cannot pay rent they cannot pay legal expenses? Is he further aware that the lawyers are so busy on other work that it is almost impossible for them to serve in the Sheriff Court?

Captain ELLIOT: There is specific provision made in the Sheriff Court Law of Scotland for the representation of poor persons. If the hon. Member knows of any cases where they cannot get such assistance if he will bring them to my notice I will have the matter looked into.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Owing to the unsatisfactory answer which I have received I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

HISTORICAL BUILDINGS.

Mr. SHINWELL: 75.
asked the Under-Secretary for the Scottish Board of Health what are the historical buildings in Scotland whose maintenance is under
the supervision of the Government; what is the total cost of maintenance; and what are the numbers employed in the same?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir John Baird): I am sending the hon. Member a list of the historic buildings and ancient monuments in Scotland which are maintained by my Department. The annual cost of maintenance is £39,000, and the average number of men employed is 200.

LAND SETTLEMENT.

Major DUDGEON: 77.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he will state the number of applications for small holdings at present on the waiting list of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland; and what proportion of the said applications have been on the Board's waiting list for over two years?

Captain ELLIOT: The number of outstanding applications on the lists of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland is 10,040, including 3,769 from ex-service men; of the total applications approximately 8,150, including 2,700 from ex-service men, have been on the lists for two years or more. These numbers, however, include a considerable proportion of cases in which the applicants may prove unsuitable owing to inexperience, lack of capital or other reasons.

CROWN FISHING RIGHTS.

Major DUDGEON: 78.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he is aware that many Crown fishing rights in the south-west of Scotland are, let privately at a nominal rent to the proprietors of the adjacent land; and whether, with a view to increasing revenue from these fishing rights and giving the public an opportunity of acquiring same, steps will be taken in future to put them up for open competition?

Sir R. SANDERS: I have been asked to reply. The Crown's fishing rights in Scotland are in charge of the Commissioner of Woods. Crown salmon fishings in the sea are offered for letting by public tender for a term of years. As regards Crown salmon fishings in rivers, in several cases leases have been granted to angling associations or to local authorities for the benefit of residents in the district,
and generally speaking it is only when the fishings are of trifling value or there are special considerations affecting them that they are offered to the ex adverso proprietors direct. I shall be glad to have inquiry made concerning any particular case which the hon. Member has in mind.

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (WAGES).

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: 79.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he can state the number of conciliation committees which have been constituted in Scotland under the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Agriculture Acts (Repeal) Act, 1921, and the steps, if any, taken by them to adjust the rate of wages for agricultural workers in their districts?

Captain ELLIOT: No conciliation committees have been constituted in Scotland under the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Act of 1921. Shortly after the passing of that Act the Board of Agriculture offered their assistance to the National Farmers' Union of Scotland and to the Scottish Farm Servants' Union in connection with the formation of local committees. Both unions, however, replied that they did not desire any action to be taken by the Board.

POTATOES (WART DISEASE).

Mr. MILLAR: 80.
further asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he can state the new arrangements arrived at for the prevention of the spread of wart disease among potatoes, and the conditions under which potatoes may be moved from one district to another?

Captain ELLIOT: The Board of Agriculture do not at present propose to make new regulations for the control of wart disease within Scotland. As regards the movement of potatoes from Scotland to England, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries informed the hon. and gallant Member for Galloway on Tuesday last that he proposed to issue an Order at an early date.

Mr. MILLAR: When will the report be issued?

Captain ELLIOT: I am afraid that I cannot say, as the matter lies rather with the Minister of Agriculture.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether any investigation has been made into the possibility of so developing and extending the existing system of insurance as to make adequate provision thereunder for all cases of invalidity and disability arising before the age of 70, as recommended by the Majority Report of the Departmental Committee on Old Age Pensions; and, if not, whether he will cause such an inquiry to be made?

Mr. BALDWIN: No such investigation has vet been made and inasmuch as a scheme of this kind would almost inevitably involve a considerable measure of State assistance I am afraid that it is hardly practicable while our present financial difficulties continue.

Mr. ROBERTS: Could the Chancellor of the Exchequer provide the House with the actuarial data necessary to work out such a contributory scheme as is suggested?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a practical scheme does exist—that associated with the name of Mr. Broad, late Member for Clay Cross—and will he examine that scheme in order that it may be further investigated?

DYESTUFFS ACT.

54. Lieut.-Colonel HILDER: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that German dyes imported into the Irish Free State are re-exported into this country; and whether he will take steps to prevent this evasion of the Dyestuffs Act?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am not aware that German dyestuffs subject to the restrictions laid down by the Dyestuffs Act are being improperly introduced into this country from the Irish Free State. If my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish me with particulars of any cases which he has in mind, I will have inquiry made.

DEVELOPMENT FUND (GRANTS AND LOANS).

Mr. RICHARDS: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total
amount of grants and loans made out of the Development Fund since the establishment of the Development Commission in 1969; and how much of this sum has been allocated to purposes from which agricultural labourers receive any direct benefit?

Mr. BALDWIN: The total amount of grants and loans made out of the Development Fund between the establishment of the Development Commission in 1909 and the 9th instant is as follows:

£
s.
d.


Grants
2,689,042
15
7


Loans
657,782
6
3

There is nothing in the Development and Roads Improvement Fund Acts, 1909 and 1910, prescribing advances for the direct benefit of agricultural labourers, though they, in common with the rest of the agricultural community, have benefited by the improvements in agricultural methods arising from the operation of the Act. Under the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Act, 1921, a sum of £850,000 was added to the Development Fund for the purpose of providing a special fund for promoting agricultural development, including the establishment of scholarships and maintenance grants for the sons and daughters of agricultural workmen and others, and a sum of £100,000 has been set aside from this source to meet the last-mentioned purpose over a period of five years.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what are the advantages derived by the agricultural labourers who are receiving 21s. a week as wages?

Oral Answers to Questions — BUDGET.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Mr. WELLS: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the exemption of agricultural and horticultural shows from the Entertainments Duty, in view of the educational purpose served by such shows and the general depression in the country districts?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on the 20th February to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Market Harborough (Major Sir K. Fraser).

FOOD TAXES.

Mr. TURNER: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if ho is able to relieve the people of this country of any or all of the taxes on tea, sugar, and other necessaries of life?

Mr. BALDWIN: I must ask the hon. Member to await the Budget statement.

Mr. TURNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price of tea and of sugar was raised last week, is he aware of the great hardship upon widows, old age pensioners, and unemployed persons, and can he promise some relief to them from these very pressing hardships?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should bring that up on the Budget.

MOTOR-CAR IMPORT DUTY.

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the gross amount of £1,403,697 collected as motor-car import duty in the year ended 31st March, 1923, was reduced by repayments to a net amount of £763,913; whether the repayments included sums repaid in respect of motor cars and parts thereof to be used as commercial vehicles exempted from duty; if so, what amount was repaid under that heading; and whether he can state the approximate annual cost to the State in salaries and expenses of dealing with claims for repayment of import duty in respect of exempted vehicles?

Mr. BALDWIN: I beg to refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave on the 8th instant to a similar question put by the hon. Member for Coventry (Sir E. Manville).

BRITISH CELLULOSE AND CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING CO.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the exact nature of the services for which the Government directors of the British Cellulose and Chemical Manufacturing Company, Limited, received £1,000 in 1922–23 and are to receive £500 in 1923–24?

Mr. BALDWIN: The services referred to are those normally performed by directors of public companies.

Mr. WHITE: Is there any special reason why these fees should not be paid by the companies rather than by the British taxpayer?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think the special reason is the one that exists in several cases of companies that were founded during the War, where a Government director is there on purpose to watch the interests of the Government and the taxpayer, and is paid as their guardian and representative.

LAND VALUES (RATING AND TAXATION).

Mr. EMLYN-JONES: 49.
asked the Prime Minister how many municipal authorities have passed resolutions in favour of the rating and taxation of land values; and whether he will introduce legislation to give effect thereto?

The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that since 1918 representations have been received from 17 borough councils in favour of the rating of land values. The Government has no intention of introducing legislation on the subject.

Mr. EMLYN-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the rating of land values would give a great impetus to the building of houses?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of that.

TOBACCO-DEALERS' LICENCES.

Mr. MOSLEY: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether licences for the sale of tobacco and cigarettes are granted to holders of coffee stalls; and, if so, whether he will state on what grounds a licence for the sale of these articles has been refused to a disabled ex-service man,i.e., Frederick Hyatt, late corporal in the Rifle Brigade, of 65, Lyon Park Avenue, Wembley, who has invested the whole of his small savings in this business?

Mr. BALDWIN: The question whether tobacco-dealers' licences can be issued in respect of coffee stalls depends on various considerations, such as the nature of the stall and the proposed hours of sale. As regards the case of Frederick Hyatt, I am having inquiry made into the matter, and I will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

NAVY, ARMY, AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTE.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 67.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that the manager of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institute is to receive a salary of £7,500 per annum; if he can give the names of the members of the Board of Management who have granted this salary, and the name and business record of the manager; and if the Government can interfere to secure an adequate salary for this gentleman?

Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON: As regards the first portion of his question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on the 1st March.
The members of the Board of Management were:
Sir C. C. Barrie, K.B.E., M.P. (Chairman).
G. McKechnie, Esq. (Deputy-Chairman).
Paymaster-Captain H. J. Hargraves, C.B.E.
Brevet-Colonel E. Gibb, C.M. G., C. B. E., D. S. O.
Squadron-Leader H. B. Bonning.
The name of the general manager is Mr. J. C. Goff. The appointment and qualifications for the post are matters which fall within the competence of the Board of Management, and I regret, therefore, that I am not in a position to supply information as to this gentleman's business record. The Government see no reason to interfere with the decision of the Board of Management as regards the salary of the general manager.

IRAQ RAILWAYS.

Mr. WALLHEAD: 82.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the name and character of the syndicate from whom the Government has recently received an offer to purchase the Iraq railways from Basra to Bagdad?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): As I explained to the House in the Debate on the let March, negotiations with the syndicate came to nothing. In the circumstances, I do not see how any useful purpose would be served by giving the details now asked for.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Why cannot we have the name of this syndicate?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Because the negotiations came to nothing.

Captain BENN: Shall we be obliged to continue in occupation of this country in any way if we release these railways or sell them?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is quite another question.

Mr. LAMBERT: Does the hon. Member think there is anybody foolish enough to buy these railways?

JUTE INDUSTRY DISPUTE, DUNDEE.

Mr. MOREL: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister for Labour if his attention has been drawn to the serious state of affairs in the jute industry in Dundee, where a lock-out of the whole industry is threatened; if he is keeping in touch with the situation, and if he will take such steps as may be open to him to utilise the machinery of conciliation at the disposal of his Department, in order to avert the widespread misery and distress resulting from the stoppage of an industry which employs such a large proportion of the working population of Dundee?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I understand that there is a serious state of things in the jute trade in Dundee. I am keeping in close and constant touch with the situation, and shall take all proper action open to me with a view to assisting in a settlement of this dispute.

MILK (SPECIAL DESIGNATION) ORDER, 1922.

Mr. LAMB: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the provisions of the Milk (Special Designations) Order, 1922, and whether he is in a position to make any statement on the subject?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): Yes, Sir. There are certain detailed provisions in this Order which appear to me to be capable of some amendment so far as I have bad time to go into the matter. I propose to consider the Order in detail as soon
as possible and to reissue it with such amendments as appear to me to be desirable after consultation with all parties interested. My hon. Friend is aware that under the Act of 1922 the Order remains in force unless it is annulled in the manner prescribed by the Act. Any new Order must, of course, be laid before Parliament, and would equally be open for discussion and, if not agreed, to annulment by presentation of an address to His Majesty.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTION.

Mr. GRATTAN DOYLE: I wish to ask your advice, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) obtained the Adjournment of the House on a Motion which was accepted by you, and which obtained the necessary support. That Motion superseded a Bill which was down for 8.15 last evening, the Warrington Corporation Water Bill which automatically should have come on at that time. A fortnight ago I happened to be lucky in the ballot in drawing first place and I put down a reasoned motion for to-night in regard to trade and Empire development. I noticed on the Order Paper this morning that my Motion does not appear upon it and the Warrington Corporation Water Bill does. I have no doubt that that Bill is a very important Measure, particularly for the people of Warrington, but the Motion which I had down was also an important one.

Mr. SPEAKER: This is more like a speech than a point of Order.

Mr. DOYLE: I am corning to that. I want to emphasise this point that the Motion which stands in my name is one which excites an extraordinary amount of interest in this House, and a great number of Members wish to speak on it. One hon. Member from the North of England has cancelled an engagement in order to be here specially, and a distinguished Member of one of the Dominion Parliaments had made special arrangements to be present to-night—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot, under the plea of a point, of Order, make a speech.

Mr. DOYLE: I will come to the point of Order at once. Private Members have very few opportunities of bringing forward their Motions. Next Wednesday
week, the 22nd March, is taken by the Government. I do not object to giving way for a Government Motion. My point of Order is this. What is the alternative which is at the disposal of private Members? Are there or can there be open to them any means under the Rules and procedure of this House to secure the discussion of a Motion which has been excluded, as in this instance.

Mr. SPEAKER: In the first place, the hon. Member was not at all correct in saying that his Motion has disappeared from the Order Paper. If he will look at page 746, he will find it there set out in full, along with the Amendments which it is proposed to move to it.
With regard to his other point, it is the duty of the Chairman of Ways and Means to set down Private Bill business at 8.15, and, on referring to Standing Order No. 8, paragraph (3), the hon. Member will see that it is to be set down on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays or Thursdays. Therefore, the matter is entirely in the hands of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and is not one over which I have any jurisdiction. The Chairman of Ways and Means is appointed by the House to supervise the business of Private Bills, and I have no doubt he exercises his duty in a proper manner. It is not a matter which I have any jurisdiction. Hon. Members who ballot stand their chance. Sometimes they win, and sometimes they lose.

Mr. DOYLE: My chief point is, Will you kindly indicate what means are open to hon. Members who have Motions treated similarly to this to secure that they shall be taken at some future time—that facilities are given for their discussion?

Mr. SPEAKER: There are still a number of ballots. I am going to call one just now. In addition to that, if the hon. Member will look at the Order Paper, he will see that there is a Motion very similar to his own which stands first on the Civil Service Estimates.

Mr. LAMBERT: Would it be possible to indicate to the Chairman of Ways and Means that at any rate these Private Bills should be put down so as to secure an equal distribution between Government days and Private Members' days?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is already provided for in the Standing Order.

Sir J. BUTCHER: What steps can be taken to alter the Standing Order so as to avoid this infringement of the rights of Private Members?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member wants to amend the Standing Orders, he must Table a Motion to that effect, and then try to induce the Government to give time for it.

NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

CIVIL SERVICE (ENTRANTS' PAY).

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the rates of pay of certain entrants into the established Civil Service, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Robert Young.]

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION).

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the privileged position of co-operative societies, and their exemption from certain forms of taxation, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. A. M. Samuel.]

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the tax on entertainments, and to move a Resolution.—[Major Burnie.]

SUGAR DUTY.

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the burden and incidence of the Sugar Tax, and to move a Resolution.—[Captain Wedgwood Benn.]

LEASEHOLD (ENFRANCHISEMENT).

Major MALONE: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable leaseholders of houses whose original leases were granted for a period or term of not less than thirty years to purchase the freehold estate, and such other outstanding interests affecting the property, on such equitable terms as, failing agreement, may be determined by the Minister of Health for the time being.
The system of ground rents is an old and bad system handed down from the times when landlords could impose their will on others and the people have no redress. Landlords grant leases of houses and shops for a period of 99 years, and they never contribute one penny towards local taxation. The leaseholders have to pay rates and taxes and, in addition, they pay for making up the roads on the landlord's property. They have to pay also a ground rent and, what is worse,
at the termination of the lease, they have to see that the property is in good repair, as otherwise they are liable for very heavy dilapidations. I will give an instance of what occurs. An acre of ground is leased for 99 years and as many as 24 houses are erected upon it. There is a ground rent of £6 per house per year, and if hon. Members work that out they will find it produces £144 for the acre, or, taking the whole 99 years, it produces £14,256, whereas the value of the land is not more than £4 per acre, or during the period of the lease £396. During that period, notwithstanding the fact that the landlord draws all that money from the one acre, he never contributes one penny to the rates. Business premises suffer from even a greater hardship than that. A man buys a leasehold shop and through his own business ability works up a good trade. If he wants to make an improvement in any way he cannot do so without the consent of the ground landlord, and that ground landlord is paid very highly for agreeing. At the end of the lease the trader has to hand over the shop in good repair, also the goodwill of his business. The leaseholder is now subject to the Rent Restriction Act, and although his lease is getting short he cannot dispose of it, as he is unable to obtain possession. Therefore be has, without any doubt at all, to face at the end of his lease very heavy dilapidations. This Bill is a modest one. It attempts to act fairly between landlord and leaseholder. The terms are that the leaseholder should have the right to purchase his leasehold on fair and equitable terms. Should he wish to purchase he must give three or six months' notice, while the price may be agreed upon between the two, failing which an appeal will be made to the Minister of Health for the time being, who will come to a decision. The great point is this, that leaseholders should have a right to become their own freeholders on fair and equitable terms. By that means you will be creating a contented lot of business people all over the country. They will become good citizens and will be a strength to the nation.

Question,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable leaseholders of houses whose original leases were granted for a period or term of not less than thirty years to purchase the freehold estate, and such other outstanding interests affecting the property,
on such equitable terms as, failing agreement, may be determined by the Minister of Health for the time being,

put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Major Malone, Mr. G. W. H. Jones, Mr. Lorden, Mr. Cassels, and Mr. Robert Morrison.

LEASEHOLD (ENFRANCHISEMENT) BILL,

" to enable leaseholders of houses whose original leases were granted for a period or term of not less, than 30 years to purchase the freehold estate, and such other outstanding interests affecting the property, on such equitable terms as, failing agreement, may be determined by the Minister of Health for the time being," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and. to be printed. [Bill 48.]

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL,

" to extend the duration of, and amend certain provisions of, the Local Authorities (Financial Provisions) Act, 1921, and the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1921," presented by Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 47.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate and amend the Law relating to industrial assurance, and to make provision with respect to war bond policies and policies to which the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914, applies, and bond investment business." [Industrial Assurance Bill [Lords.]

INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 49.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE.C

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee of selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to
Standing Committee C (in respect of the Intoxicating Liquor (Sale to Persons under Eighteen) Bill): Viscountess Astor, Sir Arthur Shirley Bonn, Mr. Secretary Bridgeman, Mr. James Brown, Colonel Croft, Mr. Charles Crook, Captain Viscount Curzon, Mr. Foot, Mr. Greaves-Lord, Major Sir George Hamilton, Mr. Morgan Jones, Mr. Duncan Millar, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nichol, and Mr. Peto.

STANDING COMMITTEE B

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect. of the Fees (Increase) Bill): Major Boyd-Carpenter, Captain Brass, Mr. Secretary Bridgeman, Sir Martin Conway, Mr. Emlyn-Jones, Captain John Hay, Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame, Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson, Mr. March, Mr. Middleton, Sir William Raeburn, Mr. Alexander Shaw, Mr. Tillett, Viscount Wolmer, and Colonel Sir Charles Yate.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899..

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That, in pursuance of the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, they had selected the following Twenty-four Members to form the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners: Mr. William Adamson, Major Birchall, Mr. James Brown, Sir Samuel Chapman, Sir Henry Craik, Mr. Ford, Mr. Gardiner, Sir Park Goff, Sir William Graham, Mr. William Hutchison, Mr. Frederick Martin, Colonel Arthur Murray, Mr. Robert Murray, Sir William Raeburn, Mr. Alexander Shaw, Mr. Skelton, Major Steel, Mr. Stephen, Mr. Sturrock, Mr. Frederick Thomson, Major Waring, Captain Watson, Mr. William Watson, and Mr. Weir.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

REPORT [8TH MARCH].

Resolution reported,

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1923–24 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
That a sum, not exceeding £120,600,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for certain Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st clay of March, 1924, namely:

[For details of Vote OH Account, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1928, cols. 771–3.]

Resolution read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — OCCUPATION OF RUHR DISTRICT.

Sir JOHN SIMON: I beg to move to leave out. "£126,600,000," and to insert instead thereof "£126,599,900."
I am glad to see, from the condition of the front Government Bench, that there is not likely to be any immediate protest against a further discussion being initiated on the very serious question connected with the occupation of the Ruhr. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) and I have put down this Amendment to reduce the Foreign Office Vote in order to call attention to recent events of great and increasing gravity in the Ruhr Basin, and to invite a statement from the Government as to the action which is taken, or is contemplated to be taken. I am not going over old ground, which has already been dealt with in our earlier Debates. What I desire to do is to ask the attention of the House and the attention of the Government to certain new facts and new events, some of them only two or three days old, which undoubtedly have a most important bearing on this difficult question. The increasing seriousness of these events cannot be disputed, for they not only involve the prospects of peace in Europe, but at the same time they closely affect British interests—both national interests and, indeed, British commercial interests. On the opening day of the Session, which is just a month ago to-day, my right hon. Friend the
Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) called attention to the passage in the King's Speech in which the Government's policy was stated to be this:
My Government, while feeling unable either to concur or participate in this operation,''—
that is the French and Belgian action—.
are acting in such a way as not to adc3 to the difficulties of their Allies.
It is really not open to dispute that however praiseworthy that object may have been, the intervening month has shown that very considerable difficulties are caused to British interest and British trade by the continuance of a policy of merely passive acquiescence. My right hon. Friend, on the opening day of the Session, said it did not seem to him that this declaration exhausted our duty, and he pointed our that the policy of passive acquiescence could not go on indefinitely. The Prime Minister dealt with this matter in several speeches to the House, and always—if I may be allowed to say so—with his usual frankness. He has told us, in earlier Debates, that the Government- as yet did not see its way to take any action, or even, as I understand, to make any representation. But, while, the policy of waiting on events continues from week to week, and indeed now from month to month, the events themselves are rapidly changing. it is in face of these new events that the House is entitled to ask, and is bound to ask, whether passive acquiescence is still to be the keynote of British policy.
I want. to bring the thing to a point, and to state at once what are the three new events which have occurred quite recently, in respect to which we have really had no Debate on the Floor of this House at all, and as to each of which the House generally will feel that some statement from the Government is proper and desirable. The first of these three new events is that the British Army of Occupation, instead of continuing to hold its own sector of the occupied area, with Allies to the right and Allies to the left, is now completely surrounded, and has no contact with unoccupied Germany at all. Nobody will dispute that that is a very serious fact. It is a new fact, and one as to which the House and the country are entitled to have a statement from the Government. The second new event is this—it is very closely related to the first., and it concerns and affects
us all, in whatever quarter of the House we sit—that, as the result of this complete encirclement of the British area at Cologne, British trading interests in the Cologne area—interests connected with the sending of goods to the Cologne area, or through the Cologne area—which are very considerable both as to export and import, are being most seriously prejudiced. I am sure many hon. Members must have received, as I have received, indications showing that. British traders of undoubted public spirit and patriotism are really greatly concerned at the consequences to British trade which are connected with this isolation of the British area at Cologne.
The third event, perhaps the most serious of all, and also the most recent of all, is this. There are indications, unfortunately, that the period of passive resistance on the part of Germany in face of the Ruhr invasion may be coming to an end. We have news in our newspapers this morning of a savage outbreak, involving the deaths of French soldiers and of German civilians. That fact is a solemn warning to us of the danger of letting the policy of drift and acquiescence go too far. I have indicated these three events because they are new events, and I am within the knowledge of the House, and I shall be confirmed when I say, that none of the three has been made the subject of discussion or debate in the House. I will deal with the three, briefly, and in order. First of all, as to the position of the British Army of Occupation. I am not sure whether a map has been put up in one of the rooms connected with the House which shows to the full extent what has happened within the last week or so. In general terms, however, the facts are well known to the House and to the country. The original occupation—I invite the attention of the House to this fact—of the Ruhr Valley did not involve any interference with the British zone at all, because Essen and the Ruhr Valley lie opposite to the Belgian zone, which is more to the north than the British zone. Therefore, whatever may have been the anxieties of the country and the concern of the Government, when they found that our friends in France were determined to advance into the Ruhr Basin, that decision did not in itself involve any interference with the British area at all.
What has happened since is that the French have followed up their advance
into the Ruhr, which was to the north of the British sector, by a corresponding advance to the south of the British sector. They advanced into Germany, not only in Baden, but also immediately to the south of where the British troops were stationed, and by 25th February—I think I remember the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs himself giving the answer—the French troops had occupied territory between the Mainz and Coblenz bridgeheads, and then between the Coblenz and Cologne bridgeheads. They have now gone further. They have joined hands from north and from south, behind and beyond the British area, with the result that the British Army and the area of British occupation is completely encircled. That is a very grave situation, which I venture to think was not at all contemplated when the arrangements were made for the joint watch on the German frontier, and, indeed, does not seem to me to have been contemplated at the time when the Prime Minister had his interview with M. Poincaré in London last December. The House will no doubt have studied the Blue-book which has been recently issued giving an account of the interviews, both in December in London and in January in Paris, between the British Prime Minister and M. Poincaré. It is a very interesting book, and I notice that a good deal that we have been told by the Prime Minister in this House may be found in it including, indeed, the famous remark about the jugular vein.
I invite the House to allow me to read a passage on page 52 of this Blue-book on the exact point that the encirclement of the British area of occupation is a new fact, which was not within the contemplation of our own Prime Minister, or apparently, of M. Poincaré, when these conversations took place. I find on page 52 this statement as to what happened on the 10th December, 1922, at 10, Downing Street:
M. Poincaré explained that the whole of his proposals referred only to the parts of the Ruhr in the neutral zone as fixed under the Treaty of Versailles, and that he contemplated no action outside the neutral zone.
What has happened since has nothing to do with the Ruhr. The occupation of the area which is beyond the British area is not an occupation of the Ruhr, but is
an occupation of territory to the south of the Ruhr: and the plain truth is that these events have followed one after the other, step by step, and we are faced to-day with French action in this area which goes far beyond what was ever explained to or contemplated by our Prime Minister at the time of the interviews recorded in the Blue-book. That must be taken to be a very important matter, because I remember that the late Prime Minister, in the Debate three weeks ago, venturing upon a military opinion, or rather quoting the military opinion of others, said that the French advance into the Ruhr really involved the occupation of an exposed salient, and he doubted very much whether it would receive the approval of any expert military opinion. Since that date, our friends in France have completely corrected that position. They have straightened their line behind our backs, and have really taken up an entirely new front of their own, facing Germany, with the result—not a very satisfactory result, I should have thought, from the British point of view—that the British Army is no longer in contact with unoccupied Germany at all, but, as a matter of fact, is completely encircled and surrounded by French troops.
May I point out another effect which has followed upon this, and here we approach an admitted breach—admitted, I mean, on the part of the British Government—an admitted breach by the French of the Treaty of Versailles. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was asked a question on the 5th March by my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Charles Buxton) as to whether it was the fact that the Rhineland High Commission was exercising jurisdiction in the territory usually occupied by the French military authorities, and, if so, under what provision of the Treaty of Versailles or of the Rhineland Agreement it was exercising such jurisdiction. The hon. Gentleman replied by saying that that was so, but he added:
His Majesty's Government are advised that under no provision of the Treaty of Versailles or of the Rhineland Agreement can the High Commission claim to exercise jurisdiction over the territory in question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,5th March, 1923; col. 14, Vol. 161.]
That is, at any rate, one example of the unhappy consequences of the French advance as to which, up to the present,
our own Government professes itself unwilling either to interfere or, indeed, to protest. I do ask the House to consider whether the time has not come when we are bound to ask the Government the question, and urge them to answer—Have they really satisfied themselves that the recent action of the French in advancing into Germany is within the Treaty of Versailles at all? I must confess I was very much astonished at the answer, and, so far as I know, it is the only answer that has ever been given from the Government Bench on this subject. There has been a good deal of discussion as to the proper interpretation and application of the Treaty of Versailles in this regard. I remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. J. Butler), in a maiden speech which everyone in the House much appreciated, put the question very clearly indeed, but he got no answer. No one has ever had any answer from the Government on this point, and when, on the 15th February, a question was put by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Noel Buxton), as to whether or not the opinion of the law officers had been sought on the question whether action under Part 8 of the Treaty—that is the Reparations part—on which the French occupation is based, requires the unanimous consent of the Reparation Commission, an answer was given by the Under-Secretary of State to which I should like respectfully to call his attention. I cannot help thinking that on reflection he will not be preparerd to justify his answer, and I shall be very much surprised if the House of Commons is content with it. He was asked whether the Attorney-General had been asked to advise the Government as to the true interpretation and application of this Treaty of Versailles, and he replied:
I think my hon. Friend will see that it would be useless to take the course which he recommends, because any opinion given by the law officers of the Crown here must necessarily be based on principles of interpretation laid down by British law in British Courts, and those principles of interpretation may not be accepted by other nations."—[OFFICTAT. REPORT. 15th February, 1923: col. 311, Vol. 160.]
I hope I do not treat the office of Attorney-General with undue respect, but I have some recollection of that office, and have great pride in having held it, and it is the first time I have ever heard that the Attorney-General of this country has not got, as one of his most important
confidential duties, the duty of advising the Government and the Cabinet as to the proper construction and application of Treaties to which this country is a party. To say that the whole thing is to be thrown aside on the ground that an English lawyer cannot be expected to give anyone any advice on such a subject that is worth having, would, I think, make some past holders of the office turn in their graves. It has always been the case that the Government of the day has asked for, and paid such respect as is proper to, the best advice that they can get from the lawyer whom they choose as the principal adviser of the Crown, but here is a question which has been very widely canvassed, which has been raised in this House again and again. Are we really to understand that the answer of His Majesty's Government is that they have never even asked anyone, not even the person who is authorised in this matter to advise them, whether or not these proceedings are within the Treaty of Versailles?
Before I leave the point, may I just point out to the hon. Gentleman that, whatever may be said on one side or the other, this is a very serious point, on which there is, undoubtedly, a difference of opinion. I notice, for example, that M. Barthou, who is now, I think, the President of the Reparation Commission, but who was previously the authority who reported to the French Chamber as to the Treaty of Versailles, has published a book called "The Treaties of Peace," in which he reproduces the report that he made to the French Chamber as to the meaning and application of the Treaty The House is aware that, under the French system, the Chamber is accustomed to pay special attention to the views of the official who is called the reporter, who presents a commentary and explanation on various matters to the Chamber. This is what M. Barthou says in his book, at page 116, and this is what he reported to the French Chamber:
The Reparation Commission will have powers of control. If Germany avoids her obligations, the Commission will report this failure to the Power interested, and the Allied and Associated Powers will be able to take by common accord "—
I call attention to the words "by common accord"—
measures of prevention and reprisal, which Germany is bound not to consider as acts of hostility.
That Report was made in 1919, and the book is one which can be got in any bookshop that deals with serious French literature Its title is, "Les Traités de Paix," by Louis Barthou. If the reporter of the French Chamber, when the Treaty was being explained to the Chamber, took the view that the Treaty contemplated action by common accord, it is at least worth while consulting the Attorney-General as to whether one Power can take this action by itself.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the Section of the Treaty itself, so that the House may be able to judge, and not quotations from a book?

Sir J. SIMON: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for his suggestion. It is a very useful one, and I will follow it. If, however, I may mention it first, there is a second point, which was raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge University in his speech, and many think it is the more important of the two. I will just mention it, and then we will see what the language of the Treaty is. The other point of difficulty is as to what kind of sanctions the Treaty contemplates in addition to the specific form of sanction which it in terms mentions. One view is that the language of the Section is so wide as to justify one single Ally in doing anything, even though it may result, as in the present case, in destroying the prospects of other Allies getting any reparation. The other view, which commends itself to many interpreters, is that there must be some restriction put upon this action, and that military operations, which, for aught I know, may involve marching to Berlin, are not what is really contemplated by the Section. I am glad to follow the hon. Member's suggestion, which is a most practical one. The words are these:
The measures which the Allied and associated Powers "—
not, be it observed, any one of them—
shall have the right to take in case of voluntary default by Germany, and which Germany agrees not to regard as acts of war, may include economic and financial prohibitions and reprisals, and in general such other measures as the respective Governments may determine to be necessary in the circumstances.
I am not going to lay down the law on the matter. I only say that it rather astonishes one to hear that the British
Government has no desire that the Attorney-General should tell them what he thinks. The opinion which is very widely held—it is not for me to pronounce upon it at all—is, first of all, that a Clause which speaks of Measures which the Allied and Associated Powers may take cannot in the same sentence really contemplate that one Power can do what it likes, in defiance of the wishes of the others. Secondly, the contention is that economic and financial prohibitions and reprisals, though they are followed by more general words, do not in virtue of the words which follow extend to and cover the most extreme military measures. This cannot be regarded as a point of no substance. Now that we have reached a point when our friends in France have admittedly, in view of the British Government, gone beyond the powers of the Treaty in giving the Rhineland Commission powers which the Rhineland Commission has no right to exercise at all, I do ask the Under-Secretary whether it is not time that we had some assurance from the Government that they have really considered and come to a conclusion as to the extent to which the Treaty covers the action that has been taken.
I now come to the second point, namely, what is the effect which this encirclement and isolation of the Cologne area is having upon the interests of British trade. Cologne, which is the centre of the British Army of Occupation, is also a most important trading centre. It is one of the most important trading centres of that part of Europe, and it is a trading centre with which British trade has very close connections. I noticed in the "Times" newspaper the other day a very striking article communicated to them from Cologne, which contained this statement:
British firms established in Cologne number close on one hundred and they are growing more and more indignant over the situation in which they are placed, more especially since they consider that they were encouraged by the British Government to settle here and do their part in restoring pre-War trade. After four years' hard work our trade here had become really important to the Empire, but it has been ruined by a stroke of the pen.
That is a very serious statement. I do not think that at the moment it attracted quite as much attention as it otherwise might have done, because I have taken this extract from a copy of the "Times" which also announced the results of the
Mitcham and Willesden bye-elections. Until this new action by the French there were, it is true, duties which were imposed upon goods going into the occupied area, but those duties were administered through German officials, on a scale of charges which was well known, and trade was being conducted on that basis. What has happened since? I hold in my hand a letter from the secretary of the British Chamber of Commerce at Cologne, in which he asks that public attention should be drawn to the position. He says:
I beg to enclose herewith a summary of the Regulations of the Inter-Allied Rhineland High Commission on the one hand and the German Government on the other, in order that you may see for yourself the impossible state of affairs existing here.
I have done my best to digest this elaborate document, and I think I can state accurately what is the effect of it. The effect seems to be that a British trader who is exporting British goods to Cologne, whether to supply that area or to pass through Cologne into unoccupied Germany, very often sends his goods by the Rhine. Since the new French advance, his goods are stopped. They are held up by the French Customs officials before they get to Cologne, and a demand is made for an import duty of 10 per cent. ad valorem. That is by no means the end of his troubles. Supposing that he pays the import duty of 10 per cent. ad valorem, and the goods are goods which are going through into unoccupied Germany, there is also a duty which he is charged, and which is charged by the French Customs officials, because they are goods exported from the Cologne area. Neither the duty that is charged when the goods go in, nor the duty that is charged when the goods go out of Cologne are duties which the German authorities will recognise or acknowledge. Therefore, having paid the import duty or the export duty as the case may be to the French Customs officer, the British trader finds that he has to face the German tariff, and he has to pay that German tariff before his goods pass into unoccupied Germany.
The Secretary of the British Chamber of Commerce at Cologne points out that the result is that British trade is being strangled, and that it is quite impossible for it to be carried on as it was carried on before. He says:
Consequent on the Franco-Belgian march into the Ruhr district, the German officials,
who hitherto had worked the Customs business,
ceased work. The German Government declared the Bad Ems office closed, refused to recognise any licences as valid, which might he issued after that date. The Rhineland High Commission, on the other hand, declared their intention to open the office again under their sole control. Since then both sides have been constantly publishing conflicting orders, threatening persons ignoring or disobeying their conflicting orders, and threatening persons ignoring or disobeying their several instructions with heavy penalties. The use of licences in the occupied territory, issued by the German control offices, is forbidden, unless otherwise expressly mentioned. Non-compliance or evasion of these Ordinances and instructions is punishable by lines not exceeding 100,000,000 marks, five years' imprisonment and possible forfeiture of goods.
In another part of the document he says:
The German officials when dealing with British goods passing through unoccupied territory to Germany, not only will have nothing to do with the receipts for Customs duties paid to the French, hut regard it as a breach of German law if anybody under their control should have recognised the French claim.
British trade interests are things which this House of Commons has a very special duty to look after and protect. Letters are reaching many Members of this House, as well as myself, which go to show that the situation which has been created, so far as British trade is concerned inside the Cologne area, which is now surrounded by French Customs officials and French troops, is a situation which is growing more and more serious. I will quote one more passage from the statement in the "Times":
It is by no means only the local British trade which is hit. Imports from Great Britain to this area have absolutely stopped. Formerly this area took a very large proportion for its own use, and a considerable quantity of the goods in transit passed through Cologne on account of the lower freight charges, for this route competed with Hamburg. It is not only the prohibition by the German Government of the payment of 10 per cent, which has killed our trade: in the opinion of many British experts such a payment is economically impossible. A great, deal of cotton yarn from Manchester and Australian wool comes to Cologne, as well as rubber, metal ores and residues, and copper, marked in London at prices fixed by the world metal market there. These raw material prices are cut to the lowest possible figure and are practically the same throughout the world. 'The idea that Germans can pay the 10 per cent. tax on London metal prices is laughable,' one well-known engineer said to me! There is no patriotism in the refusal of German manufacturers
in occupied territory to pay a 10 per cent. import tax and another 10 per cent. tax on manufactured goods when they leave occupied territory; the refusal is justified by business considerations alone.
What is the only comfort which up to the present the Government has been able to give us on this subject? I hope we shall hear before the end of the Debate the latest information on the subject from the Under Secretary. So far as I have been able to follow what he has been able to say, it is limited to this, that they are trying to make arrangements which will give some indulgence or some period of tune for the goods that were already on order, already on the way, or already subject to contract. A much more serious thing is what is going to happen in the future. If we may trust the reports in the principal Bradford newspaper, and in other newspapers, there are large departments of British trade, vitally concerned in commercial transactions in Germany, accustomed to use Cologne as the place of entry, who stand to suffer substantially unless we can have this new situation cleared up.
Lastly, I want to call attention to the most serious thing of all. It is the news which has reached us of violent outbreaks between the French soldiery and the German population. Hitherto in the occupied areas the German population have adopted a policy of passive resistance. Everybody must see that one of the greatest dangers of the situation was that that passive resistance might in the end give way in favour of some more violent or desperate methods. I am justified in saying that this is an entirely new change, as well as a very important change, because if the Under-Secretary and other hon. Members will look at the "Times" this morning they will find in two columns side by side two communications. One is a communication from the Paris correspondent of the "Times," and the other is a communication from the Cologne correspondent of the "Times." What is it that the Paris correspondent of the "Times," writing yesterday, says?
There is a widespread feeling here this morning that events in the Ruhr during the last two days have profoundly modified the situation.
He is referring to the violent fracas, including sudden deaths on both sides, between the French soldiery and the German civilians. He goes on to say
that the French Minister of War, making a speech, said, in reference to this event:
A crime such as that, of which our two countrymen have been the victims"—
he is referring to the deaths of two French soldiers—
calls for pitiless reprisals.
I notice that in other Press communications it is stated that some of the German civilians who have been shot were people who were in custody and who were shot whilst trying to escape. There are a good many people in this House who have reason to remember that a campaign of pitiless reprisals, accompanied by the shooting of men who were already under arrest, because they were trying to escape, is not always found to be the shortest way to peace. That is what the Paris correspondent of the "Times" says. The Cologne correspondent says:
Affairs in the Ruhr and the Rhineland have taken a serious turn over the weekend, and outside the British zone the situation is extremely critical.
The question I put to the Government, which I think we are entitled to have dealt with, is this: Granted that a month or three weeks ago, or even more recently than that, the Government may have thought there was nothing to be done but simply to wait. Is it really the Government's view that this policy of passive waiting is to go on indefinitely? The object the French have at heart is more and more clearly seen not to be the recovery of reparations at all. I do not for a moment say their anxiety about security and their indignation at the way in which they feel they have been played with is not a sentiment which all of us will recognise as natural and which most of us would have a great deal of sympathy with, but they are not there for the purpose of collecting reparations, whatever their purpose may be. If I may again refer to the Blue Book, if one reads the conversation which went on in London last December between the Prime Minister and M. Poincaré, it is plain that that cannot have been the object which M. Poincaré had in mind. At page 24 of the Blue Book, in the preliminary discussion, the French Prime Minister was saying:
So far as reparations are concerned the schedule of payments agreed to on 5th May, 1921,"—
That is the £6,600,000,000—
had already made an appreciable reduction in the valuation of the German debt as contemplated in the Treaty of Versailles. Any question of further reduction would meet with violent opposition in France.
I notice on page 38 the Prime Minister, faced with that most serious declaration, naturally said to M. Poincaré, "Then what is your object?" Let me read the passage, because it shows, as indeed the whole House knows very well without reading the Blue Book, the Prime Minister will always tell the House frankly what he has said privately on behalf of the Government. He was obviously much concerned. This is what he said:
Before the questions of sanctions was discussed,"—
Before the discussion about the Ruhr,
he asked, Could not M. Poincaré put before them proposals so that they would know what demands it was contemplated to make on Germany and how they could be carried out?'
That is the attitude taken by our Prime Minister. He never got an answer. As far as I can see, the question was not really repeated, and these discussions broke down, and the conference ended in Paris in January with the French Prime Minister on his side taking the stand that nothing would induce him to reduce this impossible figure of reparation by a penny, and on the other hand on an absolute refusal to explain how he thought there was something which Germany could do in order that they might, by doing it, get the withdrawal of the French Army. The question, therefore, that arises seems to be this: The Government plan of waiting a little until the French saw that reparations could not really be collected by following the French plan, the idea that we should wait in order that Franco might see the mistake she had made, ceases to have any meaning at all if the French object is seen to be something different from reparation. What is the good of waiting till France discovers that she cannot get reparations by this method, if that is not really the main object of France? If the French position was really to occupy the Ruhr indefinitely, is British policy to be that we are to wait. indefinitely? However plausible a waiting policy may have been a month ago, its justification disappears when it is established that there
is nothing to wait for. Therefore, I invite the Government to consider whether they must not make some declaration, some advance, which goes beyond their purely negative attitude hitherto. The sole defence for Government inaction, which has been put forward again and again by the Prime Minister, is that the Government is unwilling to do anything of which the French do not approve. That, for instance, was his reason for discouraging a reference to the League of Nations.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I do not think the Prime Minister ever used that expression.

Sir J. SIMON: I need not say, especially as the right hon. Gentleman is not here, that I am anxious not to misrepresent him at all. I am glad to be corrected if that is rot so. At any rate, to take up the attitude that you cannot make any appeal to the League of Nations unless you think France would approve your doing so is to reduce the Covenant of the League to an almost meaningless absurdity. The Covenant can only be brought into operation if one signatory exercises his friendly right to call the attention of the League of Nations, whether the Council or the Assembly, to a situation which threatens the peace of the world. I will take Article II of the Treaty and put this question to the House. Would anyone dispute that circumstances have arisen which threaten to disturb international peace? Can anyone dispute that the good understanding between the nations upon which peace depends is threatened by recent events? If those two statements are really quite impossible to controvert, those are exactly the conditions upon which Article II of the Treaty declares that it is the friendly right of each member of the League to call attention to the situation. May I read the words?—
It, is also declared to he the friendly right of each member of the League to bring to the attention of the Assembly or the Council any circumstance whatever affecting international relations which threatens to disturb international peace or a good understanding between nations upon which peace depends.
I quite understand that the position may he taken up—it was taken up by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) in the Debate three weeks ago—that after all you must allow to the
Government of the day a wide discretion and exercise of judgment as to the right moment at which to take action, but that is a wholly different proposition from contending that as long as one signatory to this Article II objects, that. is a reason why no action should be taken at all. I cannot help thinking the House and the country would greatly value a declaration from the Government that though they have, of course, to choose their own time—heaven knows it is much easier to ask questions than to answer them—at the same time they do not at all take up the position that they decline to regard reference to the League of Nations as possible as long as there is a prospect of our friends in France objecting. How can it be an unfriendly act to France to exercise under the Treaty a friendly right which France, by her signature, has declared every party to the Treaty possesses. To say one Power can really, in effect, hold up a reference to the League simply because it objects to the reference being made is completely to upset the whole scheme of the Covenant of the League and to confer upon each Power that signs the Covenant a liberum veto the right which is more vulgarly and simply expressed by saying "one black ball shall exclude." That is not the scheme of the League of Nations at all, and while, therefore, the time at which it ought to he used is, of course, a matter of very grave and high policy on which, no doubt, we must pay due attention to the views of the Government, I ask that it shall be made plain that there is no question that they are debarred from taking this action, with the Council of the League, I think, meeting next month, simply because they are afraid French opinion would not approve of it.
May I make one more reference to the Blue Book? I see on page 78 a report of a very powerful speech which the Prime Minister made in the discussions at Paris. In that speech he laid down, with what seems to me the most admirable good sense, the policy which he thought ought to be followed. May I read it?—
But no really large sum could be obtained without re-establishing German credit. To do that the first thing was to find out, not only in the opinion of the Allies themselves, hut in the opinion of all fair-minded people outside, how much Germany could pay.
That being the view which the Prime Minister expressed at Paris, I conclude by asking this question. I trust it may be
dealt with. Is that still the view of His Majesty's Government? Is it still their policy? If it is their policy what is it that they are doing in order to carry that policy into effect.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. MOREL: The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by telling us three new facts had recently emerged. I entirely agree with that, but I suggest that a fourth new fact has emerged, that is that we have in Europe to-day a rapidly developing war situation. We have a letting loose of appetites, we have a letting loose of international disturbances, and we have a letting loose of fears from one end of Europe to the other. We have fears in Switzerland. We have very acute fears in Holland. What is the position of Holland to-day in regard to the French advance? Trade between Holland and Germany is being interfered with and the Dutch know only too well that if this policy of France is persisted in the problem of Limburg and the Scheldt, which nearly brought war between Holland and. Belgium two years ago, will be revived. The Dutch know very well that they are very liable to fall into the ditch which the French are digging and when public opinion, which has been kept back, as some of us have reason to know, by official influence in Holland, becomes really conscious of the result of the persistency of French policy, you are going to get an explosion of public opinion in Holland directed both against France and Belgium which may have very serious consequences and towards which we certainly shall not be able to show indifference. Then take the position of Poland. Poland has been arming to the teeth for a long time. She is now expending more and more upon preparations for war. She has just borrowed 400,000,000 francs from France, the whole of which is to be spent on munitions and preparations for war. It seems a rather curious thing that we are told on the one hand that France is invading Germany because she cannot meet the deficit in her Budget and must have reparations, and that she should be rich enough, apparently, to lend Poland £16,000,000 in order to buy munitions and make preparations for war. Fear is also present in Hungary over some sinister movements which have taken place in Rumania. The longer European
statesmen, and public opinion in Europe tolerate, this violation of the law of Europe by the French, the more you are going to create these fears and apprehensions and the nearer you are arriving at a state out of which war will automatically ensue. Take the position in Germany itself. Germany is being driven to despair. A friend of mine the other day attended a meeting of students of the Berlin University. He contrasted the tone of that meeting with the tone of a similar meeting held four years ago when Professor Nicolas, who took much the same line which some of us took in this country in regard to the War, and when he had been rehabilitated in his University Chair and was using his whole influence upon German students for peace and the reconstruction of Europe. To-day my friend attends a meeting at this same university of 2,500 students, and he finds that the whole of that great impulse towards peace, which undoubtedly existed in Germany at the end of the War, has been turned round and to-day they are asking for revenge. The Leader of the Opposition said the other day, in so many words, that this House really does not realise as a whole the gravity of the situation in Europe.
I do not suppose that, in the whole history of Europe, we have had such an extraordinary spectacle as we are witnessing to-clay. Here is a great and gifted nation, a member of the League of Nations, which is supposed to exist to prevent acts of aggression in time of peace—here is this great, gifted nation invading a neighbouring country, seizing its railways, establishing a- line of Customs, expelling its officials, destroying the whole civil administration of the country—doing everything, in fact, but annexing it in name. That is what is going on under our eyes, and it is illustrative of the bankruptcy of statesmanship in Europe and of the moral decay which has come into men's minds that this act can take place without protest and without constructive opposition. War would have been raging from one end of Europe to another if the victim of this act were not militarily helpless for the time being. But does any sane man believe that, if pursued, this policy will not lead to war? Can any sane man believe that, if war once starts in Europe, it will not spread from one end of
Europe to the other; and can anyone believe that if that war once starts, we shall not be dragged in sooner or later.
What terrifies me more than anything else is the argument which is used, the position which is taken up by some hon. Members opposite, perhaps not so much in this House as outside, of "Hats off to France" whatever France does. It appears to me to be the most dangerous attitude. When the real designs of French militarism have become so clear that no one can mistake them, these math influences which are agreeing to-day with what France does will turn round and condemn France to-morrow. The Prime Minister says ho has no policy in face of the situation, and, if I do not misrepresent him, which I should be sorry to do, I think he told the House the other day that if we called the fact that he had no policy "drift," then he was drifting. It does seem to me that this policy of drift is the most clangorous policy you can possibly adopt from the point of view of peace and national security. Whom does it help? It is injurious to France because it helps French militarism to drag the French people along a road ending in disaster. It is injurious and unfair to Germany. We have certain obligations to Germany under Treaty; these obligations have been set aside. It is injurious to our own interests. The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) has touched to-day briefly on the reports which are pouring into us from British merchants in Cologne and London. I myself have called attention on several occasions to these reports. One of the latest I have received is from one of the biggest importers of aluminium. A very large stock of their goods has been seized by the French. They cannot get the stuff away they cannot supply their clients in Eng and with whom they have contracts. The result is, I am informed, that unless the situation is ended at once several thousand workers in this country will be thrown out of employment within the next few weeks. It is injurious therefore to our interests and injurious to the interests of peace, which are threatened more and more the longer the situation develops.
I should like to ask the Government a specific question. The Government has said that, in all these individual
cases, they will do what they can, but there is the question of principle, and what I want to ask is: Are the Government prepared to accept the position that wherever the French choose to go that there our trade can be interfered with and can have new taxes imposed upon it.? It is not merely a question of dealing with individuals; it is a question of knowing what is going to happen as the French area of occupation increases. What I hope the Government will tell us clearly is, if to-morrow the French Government occupies Hamburg or Berlin—if wherever they go, the Government accept the position that the French have the right to interfere with our trade and impose licences on goods which have already paid licences to the Germans, If they do I venture to say that it is a decision which this country will not stand for a moment.
I wish to echo a remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley. He said, in effect, are you going to wait indefinitely? You have waited, and the French have pursued their policy with all the greater activity, the less activity you have shown. The Prime Minister, referring to France's attitude with regard to mediation, said that France would regard as a hostile act either a reference to the League of Nations or a reference to the Hague tribunal, or any mediation at all. That is a position we on this side of the House cannot accept. We are members of the League of Nations. We have as much right as France in the League, and we are also signees of the Versailles Treaty, which, unfortunately for us, the late Prime Minister helped to create, and which has done us and the world infinite harm. We are a member of that Treaty, and it is perfectly ridiculous for the French to take up the position that they will not allow us to review their action, which professes to be action under the Treaty, nor allow us to refer the matter to the League of Nations. If we take up that position, we reduce ourselves to the level of a Balkan State, placing ourselves in a most humiliating position, and not in a position which makes for peace. My own particular views on this subject are perfectly clear, and have been from the beginning. I submit that the policy this country ought to pursue is not one of diplomatic inaction, but one of constructive diplomatic action, that the
whole strength and influence of our diplomacy should be brought to bear to establish the closest possible co-operation with the United States with a view to a new conference to reconsider the whole, political settlement of 1919, and to consider the strengthening and the reform of the League of Nations. If you do not get this matter settled within a given time, it will get out of hand, and you will never get it settled at all. You will never get it settled unless Great Britain and America work together for the definite purpose of re-shaping the entire political settlement of 1919. Any other policy is tinkering with the subject. The position, as I see it to-day, is that the vital power of this country is prevented from finding expression by a formula of inaction which seems to me to offer the very greatest dangers, both from the point of view of our own interests and from the point of view of peace.
I want to pass to another subject in another part of the world where an equally dangerous position is being developed although, of course, the setting is very much smaller—that is, the position in Egypt. Same of us had the privilege of waiting on the Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary of State the other day on a deputation in connection with Egypt. Since we had that interview matters, from one point of view, have got much worse, but from another point of view there has been a ray of hope. The House is familiar with the main subject and I do not propose to do much more than to touch upon it very briefly.
Briefly, the position in Egypt to-day is that for the last year we have been trying to govern the country, not through its representatives, but through our own nominees, with the result that we have not succeeded in bringing about that treaty between Britain and Egypt which we all desire to see, but have succeeded merely in worsening the situation and increasing the exasperation on both sides. The other day we had a striking telegram from Cairo in the "Times," which is a source not suspected of any particular leaning towards Egyptian nationalism. It represents the view which we have been urging on the Government. The message states:
In view of the apparent bankruptcy of martial law a solution may be found in a new orientation of policy—possibly in entrusting the maintenance of order and
security to an Egyptian Government. If this policy were developed it would seem that the only possible course to take would be to release Zaghloul Pasha, the sole Egyptian strong enough to inspire an Egyptian Government with sufficient power to maintain order without the British support of men under martial law. And the abolition of martial law is now generally admitted to be desirable. The only alternative is the reinforcement of the present régime involving the use of additional troops and further coercion, with no hope of ending murderous attempts or of reaching a settlement, but only a steady drift to more bitter Anglo-Egyptian relations.
I urge the Government to be a little more courageous in this matter of an Egyptian settlement. It has been trying to settle the affairs of the country through four different Pashas, none of whom had real authority with the Egyptian people, and it has failed—the last failure being that of Adby Pasha—to form a Cabinet. The position to-day is that we have no Cabinet in Egypt, no government and no policy. There are outrages. There is an intensification of martial law as a result of these outrages, and there appears to be no hope at all of any constructive policy in the future. What we urge on the Government is to take their courage in their hands, to recall to Egypt Zaghloul Pasha, who is the real leader of the Egyptian people, and to see if he cannot form a Ministry. I do not know Zaghloul Pasha myself, but I do protest, and I think a protest should be made in this House, against the charges which have been made against him in the Press. He, has been described as an Anglophobe and an intriguer against, the British position in Egypt, whereas he has been spoken of in the 'highest terms by Lord Cromer, Lord Milner and Lord Kitchener.
It is admitted, not only by Egyptians, but, I think, by nearly all who have had anything to do with affairs in Egypt during the last 15 years, that he is the only man in whom the Egyptian people believe. In their eyes he is a kind of demigod. Here is this man, 70 years of age, exiled in Gibraltar, suffering from an incurable disease, and observers in Egypt, who understand the situation on the spot, realise that if anything happens to him while he is there in Gibraltar you will have in Egypt massacres, and, in fact, the beginnings of another Ireland. I would urge the Government to reconsider their whole policy in Egypt.
I do not want to make any personal attack on General Allenby, whose military services to the State we all recognise, and who was very active in getting the Protectorate removed, and the declaration of Egyptian independence made. But I do suggest that in the existing difficulties it would be better if we had a representative who was not identified with the policy of keeping out of Egypt the only man who can lead the Egyptian people. I have received to-day, and the House might be interested to hear it, a message from a respected Member of this House, the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Spoor), who is in Egypt now for his health—
Failure martial law in Egypt abundantly shown from its utter inability secure arrest of single criminal responsible for outrages. Imposition fines on community no remedy under pretence rousing people from attitude indifference. It simply penalises hundreds of people who have no connection whatever with crimes. Continued imprisonment innocent men whose sole desire honourable understanding with Britain is disgrace to our administration and lamentable confession of our poverty of ideas. Zaghloul Pasha over 70 years age and Egypt's acknowledged political leader kept in exile seemingly to satisfy sectional British demand for continued control and to serve militarists' pride. Meanwhile situation generally gets worse. Can nothing be done to awaken the Government to need for immediate action or are we going to repeat Ireland's tragedy? 
I desire to reinforce that message with all the earnestness at my command, and I urge the Government once more to reconsider its policy in Egypt and to display a little of that imagination in which sometimes its best efforts are so sadly lacking.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Morel) has laid down for the Government a policy to be pus led in Egypt, a policy which has been laid down several times before. That policy may be summed up in these words: "Recall a certain political personage who is now interned in Gibraltar owing to the action of the British Government, and put that gentleman in power in Egypt." I am not going to express an opinion as to whether that gentleman is or is not a fit person at the present moment to put in power in Egypt, but I am sure that the hon. Member, and hon. Members opposite, will believe that no situation is quite so simple as all that. Without entering into a controversy with regard to the present
state of Egypt, one thing clear from its history is that its political difficulties have been due in the past, as I think they are due to-day, not so much to any British interests or interference, but owing to cross-currents and counter-currents of opinion and intrigue in Egypt itself.
It is a very simple view of the situation to suppose that the resignation of Nesim Pasha the other day was entirely due to the British position with regard to the Sudan or any other particular question. It is true—and I regret it, and do not know whether it was avoidable, though I cannot help thinking that perhaps the Government might have played its cards tactically rather better—that the Egyptian interests concerned in that affair have been able to put the blame on His Majesty's Government for that resignation, and I am sorry to see that they have been able to make the hon. Member for Dundee, and others, believe that the only reason for his resignation was a particular attitude taken up by Lord Allenby. Everybody who knows the present political position in Egypt knows that that is not the case. The proposal put forward by the hon. Member for Dundee is that the British Government should recall Zaghloul Pasha from Gibraltar to Egypt and make him Prime Minister for the purpose of imposing—

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I hope that it is only by a slip of the tongue that the Noble Lord says that we have suggested that the British Government should make Zaghloul Pasha Prime Minister of Egypt.

Lord E. PERCY: I am afraid that it was not a slip of the tongue. It was actually word for word what the hon. Member for Dundee said.

Mr. MOREL: No, I did not say that the British Government should recall Zaghloul Pasha, and make him Prime Minister.

Lord E. PERCY: I am within the recollection of the House, but I withdraw unreservedly if I have misrepresented the hon. Member. But I think it fair to say this, that the assumption behind the hon. Member's proposal was that if Zaghloul Pasha were released he would automatically become Prime Minister of Egypt, and that we should do everything we can to promote his being placed in that position and that does indicate- that hon. Members
opposite, while they say that the British Government should have no control over Egypt and wish the British Government to withdraw from all connection with Egyptian politics, do wish at the present moment that British influence should be thrown on a particular side in the present political dispute in Egypt, and that so far as we can we should promote the Premiership of Zaghloul Pasha. That would be regarded, and even the action of the British Government in releasing Zaghloul Pasha at the present moment would be taken in the present situation—very regrettably no doubt—as indicating, that the British Government wish to have Zaghloul Pasha Prime Minister for the purpose of imposing a particular constitution on Egypt. I think that that is the fact and that is the difficulty of the situation.
I do not mean to say that I think that the British Government should not do it. I am not at the moment expressing any opinion as to what the Government's action should be, but we should remember that the cut and dried proposals which are put forward by the hon. Member for Dundee do not really represent the delicacy of the situation or the difficulties which we have to meet. And I think that it is fair and it should be said clearly in this House—it has been said I think before but it should be repeated—that there is no doubt among people who know Egypt that, so far as anything outside crimes against foreigners which are left unpunished by the Egyptian Government, is concerned, there is nobody in Egypt, I believe, least of all Lord Allenby, who desires to maintain martial law in Egypt. It is agreed on all hands that the moment you have a constitution in Egypt, the moment you can have a Government set up under a State constitution, so that an Act of Indemnity can be passed, martial law ought to be abolished, and the sooner that happens the better. And it is not the case, and it should be stated clearly in order that Egyptian public opinion may take note of it, that His Majesty's Government desire to continue martial law in order to keep their hold over Egypt. They have denied that repeatedly and it is not the case. I hope that no hon. Member opposite will insinuate that it is the case.

Mr. MOREL: There has been martial law since 1914. That is eight years.

Lord E. PERCY: I know, but that does not alter the present situation or the fact, which hon. Members opposite know perfectly well, that the great obstacle to the removal of martial law ever since the end of the War has been that no Egyptian Ministry was prepared to take office unless protected by martial law, and that no one in Egypt so strongly opposed the withdrawal of martial law as the Egyptian Ministers themselves. That, again, is a factor in the situation which the over-simple exposition of the hon. Member for Dundee left out of account. Let me pass from that to the general situation in the Ruhr. I think that the hon. Member laid down a policy which was almost indistinguishable from the policy of the French Government, as it has been reported in the Press and as I believe it is in actual fact. The hon. Member wants a revision of the whole political settlement of 1919. So, I understand, do the French Government. That is precisely what the French Government have been saying, or what different sections of public opinion in France have been saying. I have referred before in this House to the question whether hon. Members opposite are really very consistent in some of their criticisms of the political settlement of 1919, and whether it lies in the mouth of those who preached self-determination so vigorously towards the end of the War, to object to a settlement like the Austrian settlement, where the worst features from an economic point of view, are the result of a too rigid application of the self-determination principle.
For instance, I wish that hon. Members opposite would take into consideration the fact that where the Treaty sinned most violently against the principle of nationalism, as, for instance, in the Tyrol, no one alleges that any evil economic results have followed. It is where the Treaty sought to carry out the national principle that economic evils have followed in the most distinct and urgent form. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that, in thinking of complete rearrangement of the political settlement, they would be well advised to examine their views and principles of foreign policy in relation to the drawing of frontiers, in order to make quite certain whether they can go to a new conference
with any united feeling or clear idea as to the principles on which frontiers would be drawn. They think that a corridor for Bulgaria to Salonika is extremely desirable, but that a corridor for Poland to Danzig is very inadvisable. That is a fact which can be explained, no doubt, but it follows no clear principle. Are hon. Gentlemen anxious for a re-opening of the whole of the settlement of 1919? I do not think that anyone has criticised the settlement of 1919 more violently than I have, in my humble way. But, in asking for a re-arrangement of the whole of that settlement, are hon. Members considering the counter views which they will meet from the French Government, who also desire a re-arrangement of the whole settlement? Is that the way in which we are likely to get a greater measure of peace and justice than we have now? I ask hon. Members to consider that point.
I know there is a feeling that at great international conferences the representatives of a nation like this can rise and speak of justice and truth and peace, and carry their view in an atmosphere which they will create and control. That is a very long way from the actual facts of an international conference—the facts of compromise here and compromise there, of conflicting interests, the most violent of them conflicting national interests based on the self-determination doctrines which hon. Members opposite have applauded and applaud still when they are uttered in Ireland. It is a very far step from that idealistic conference, where we can make our views felt, to the actual things that happen when you get 20 nations, no matter how enlightened, meeting in the same room. I do not for a moment believe that, the way to peace is to tear up and reform from the outset to the end the whole of a political settlement which, however faulty and wrong, was reached only after many months of difficult negotiations, and necessitated just those compromises which I have mentioned.
I do not think that that is the way to set about it. But I think that the time is approaching when the Government can no longer maintain an attitude of purely negative neutrality towards what is happening in the Ruhr. I do not think that they can obtain the support of the United States or their intervention, when
It comes, because I do not believe that the United States will be inveigled into any such far-reaching and entangling relations in Europe as that would involve—at any rate under the present administration. I hold that the Government must have more courage than the hon. Member for Dundee realises. I think they will have to take the lead alone, without waiting for the United States. They must not take action in the sense of tearing up the whole Treaty of Versailles, because that would lead, as I hae said, to the very same demand from France in exactly an opposite sense, but I do hold that they will be obliged to enforce the Treaty of Versailles, obliged to appeal to that Treaty, and obliged to get the agreement of France to an arrangement of this whole question. I am no pedant about the methods of arrangement, but, so far as I can see, the most convenient, the most effective and the least objectionable to France, for consideration of this problem, is the Council of the League of Nations. The time is approaching when we who support His Majesty's Government in their attitude will ask them to take strong and decided action, although we are and must remain prepared to leave His Majesty's Government the judges: of the precise moment at which to act.

Mr. MOSLEY: The Noble Lord who has just spoken will forgive me if I do not follow him in his interesting references to the Egyptian situation, beyond making the comment that one of his inferences seemed to be illegitimate. The Noble Lord appeared to think that the fact that a man was let out of gaol of necessity meant that he must become Prime Minister. No doubt history brings many great precedents to support that view, but it does not invariably follow, and I submit that it is a contention which cannot be supported—that because hon. Members on the Labour Benches desire to release Zaghloul Pasha from his confinement at Gibraltar, they intend in any way to impose him upon the Egyptian people.

Lord E. PERCY: That, of course, is true. But I would point out that we have been pressed this afternoon to release Zaghloul Pasha, not on the ground of mere justice but on the ground that he is the only natural, political
leader of the Egyptian people. What does that mean?

Mr. MOSLEY: What it means is this: That hon. Members on the Labour Benches think that the British Government is keeping in confinement in Gibraltar a man whom a free people desire to make Prime Minister. They advocate that Zaghloul Pasha should be released and allowed to return to his native land, where, if the country chooses, it may make him Prime Minister. If the country does not want to make him Prime Minister it will not do so. How can the Noble Lord, even from the serene detachment of his elevated spirit, so distort the argument of hon. Members on this side? The Noble Lord addressed some other admonitions to my hon. Friends. He pointed out how absurd it was for them to advocate self-determination and at the same time to wish for a revision of the Treaty of Versailles, which would provide for some greater measure of economic unity between the nations. Why should it be that racial freedom is compatible with internationalism? Of course, it is perfectly compatible for races who are free to come together in a wider arrangement of economic unity for their mutual benefit. The Noble Lord returned to the Ruhr, and I hoped that in this sphere he would be able to give us further enlightenment. But he enlightened us only to this extent—that since the last. Debate, in which he took part, he has changed his view. He did not say why. I remember that I had the difficult task, on the last occasion on which I participated in a Debate on Foreign Affairs, of following the Noble Lord. He had just addressed a powerful and cogent appeal to the House to do nothing, and in advocating a policy of drift and muddle, he went as far as a good supporter of the Government should. But this afternoon, from his Olympian heights, he did administer a slight expostulation to the Government, and invited the Prime Minister, in view of the gravity of the situation, to take some action.
Let me come to the main theme of this discussion. We have had to-day a very elaborate, detailed and frank Debate. To a certain extent we have set aside those considerations which in the past have sometimes circumscribed discussion. We have always been told that anything that
is said in this House may offend France. I am thankful to say that that consideration has not been kept unduly in view in the course of to-day's discussion. After all, we have tried the old mealy-mouthed method, have tried not to say frankly what are the views of this country, and not to declare our policy. Such methods are largely responsible for the terrible situation in which we find ourselves today. The demand which is made of the Government at the moment is for clear analysis, decisive judgment, and plain speech. That alone can hope to remedy the situation in which we are placed. Let us speak out frankly, if necessary with brutal frankness, and invite the Government to do the same. We have tried the other method and it has not worked. Another argument which was always advanced in previous Debates was that it was unwise to urge the Government into any precipitate action, and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has himself put forward that view with great strength. To begin with, I have no great fear of the present Government ever embarking on any precipitate action. Our experience so far, has not justified that apprehension. The difference between the present Government and the last Government in this respect is very marked. The last Government, it seemed to me, were always in a hurry because it never knew where it was going to, and the present Government is never in a hurry, because it is always quite certain that. it never possibly can get anywhere at all and after all that is the soundest of all grounds for delay and caution.
The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) in his elaborate and detailed survey of the situation adduced very powerful arguments to demonstrate that the position with which the Government and the country is now confronted is fundamentally different from the position as we conceived it, when this question first arose. The right hon. Gentleman adduced the position of oar forces, circumscribed as they are on every side; the position of our traders in this area and the grave incidents of violence and threats of further violence, which have arisen between the French and the civilian population, and he argued that these circumstances taken in conjunction, present a fundamentally new conception of
the Ruhr situation, which calls for a revision of the Government's attitude. I venture to submit there are further arguments and even wider considerations which must now be taken into account. If we read the French Press—and any man who reads carefully the French Press as a whole, may see fairly accurately reflected there, the mind of the Quai D'Orsay—there we see that the aims of French policy, the open, avowed, and admitted aims of French policy, are changing and have changed. We see at last the reason why the French Prime Minister insisted upon fixing the reparations figure at a point which the economic opinion of the world says is impossible of achievement. We see why during the course of those discussions which are recounted in the Blue Book quoted by my right hon. and learned Friend, the Prime Minister of France ever refused to discuss or debate that question with the Prime Minister of this country. We see now revealed in the French Press reflecting, as I contend it does, the opinions of the Quai D'Orsay, the real policy and the real mind of France. If it is contended that this reflection be not true then I submit that a question and a very strict question should be addressed by this Government to the Government of France which should elicit the truth. No such questions have yet been addressed to the French Government.
Are we to understand that the situation now is this, that the French aim at the imposition of a new Tripartite Treaty by Belgium and France upon Germany, and that, as we understand again from the French Press, the Prime Minister of this country is to be kept waiting in the old familiar fashion upon the doormat until France has settled this Treaty and then is to be invited, if he cares to do so, to sign that Treaty, nobody caring very much whether he signs it or not? That apparently does not make the slightest difference in the eyes of France. Is this to be our position as one of the greatest Powers in the world, and one of the greatest participants in the world War—is this the position to which we have sunk in the European situation? If we are to have a new Treaty; if we are to have what amounts to the permanent annexation of the Ruhr Valley, and the permanent annexation of the Saar Valley; if France is to wed the Ruhr coal and the Lorraine iron in perpetuity; if there is to be a
revision of the Treaty giving France all those aims which were resisted by England and America and defeated at the Peace Conference at Versailles; if that is to be so, does it not fundamentally alter the position of the Government of this country? I submit that it is legitimate to assume that these are the aims of France, until straightforward questions have been addressed to the French Government and we have elicited the real position. Does this situation not alter the whole position of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister?
It might have been argued quite plausibly, when the situation first arose, that the right hon. Gentleman's policy of wait and see was right. He argued, "France has got to make this attempt; she is going to the Ruhr Valley to get her reparations; she will fail, she will be disillusioned, and then will come the moment at which Great Britain may profitably intervene." That is a standpoint which can be argued and which was argued with great force, but does not the present situation entirely alter that argument, modify it, and defeat it? No doubt it may be argued if reparations were the real object of France, then time was on the side of the right hon. Gentleman, and disillusionment would have brought about a prospect of intervention. Supposing, however, that, as a fact, the aim of France is not reparations but annexation, then time is against the right hon. Gentleman. Then every day the situation becomes more difficult, every day the situation hardens, every day that policy crystallises. This policy of annexation and exploitation cannot be disproved except under the test of the years, just as the policy of annexing Alsace Lorraine was finally disproved by the test of the years. It cannot now be undone. The French people will not be disillusioned in the policy which they are pursuing until another world war has convulsed Europe and, in fact, until France has suffered a military defeat. If this new policy be adopted, then nothing in the world can avert or prevent ultimate war. That appalling, that colossal fact looms once again before our anguished humanity. If this state of things continue, if the present situation be allowed to grip until it becomes permanent, hardened, crystallised, then nothing in the world can prevent war.
To-day you see the gradual creation of the new alignment of Europe. You see,
on the one hand, the much advertised bloc, France, Belgium, and Italy; on the other hand you see a new alliance coming into being between Germany and Russia. On the one hand was the League of Victors, and on the other the League of Pariahs. On the one hand there was the League of Prosperity, and on the other the League of Despair. And if the precedents of history be true in this case, we may judge that, in the end, the league of despair will prove victorious, for it is the usual rule that desperate men fight best. If this be the case, and I submit these contentions have not yet been disproved from the Government, Benches, what is the true policy of this country? There seem to me to be two possible policies. One is active strenuous intervention, and the other is withdrawal and complete isolation. The present policy of the Government embodies all the worst features of both those policies. We are not raising one finger to prevent war. We are doing nothing to avert what is rapidly becoming an inevitable catastrophe, and at the same time, if war does come, we shall be involved in it, with our forces and our moral responsibilities.
Supposing we adopt one or other of these two policies, or as I submit, adopt first one and then if that fails, adopt the other, what are the weapons and resources in the hands of this country that we can employ in a policy of active intervention? The right hon. Gentleman says that not only would intervention be regarded as an act of hostility by France, but that it is not feasible, that it would not work, and that we should do no good in that way. Well I think the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley, disposed pretty effectively of the argument that France could possibly consider an appeal to the League of Nations as a hostile act. Let me deal for one moment with the argument that an appeal to the League of Nations would do no good and could do nothing at all except break up the League. If advocates of the League of Nations seriously advance that view, then they are saying in this House that the League of Nations is impotent and is ineffective for the purpose for which it was created. The League of Nations was designed primarily for the prevention of war, for the prevention of aggression, and for the maintenance of peace. If we now say that
the League of Nations is unable to act in this matter without the acquiescence of France, then we are saying to the world that one Power in Europe is strong enough to defeat the League of Nations and that one Power can hold up, for as long as it likes, the collective will of mankind. If we take that view we admit that the League of Nations is impotent and there is no place in the world for an impotent League of Nations.
I submit, even though it be true that in her present position of extraordinary military and industrial strength, France might be able to defy the League of Nations, that in any case it is worth attempting. If the attempt is not made then the League fails, and it is far better to use the League even if we risk breaking the League, rather than let it die an inglorious death. It is better, after all, in human affairs to die gloriously on the field of action than to sit still or to lie still until you are smothered in bed. That is what the present policy invites. Therefore, I would advocate intervention, with an immediate appeal to the Assembly of the League of Nations and the mobilisation of the whole moral forces of mankind. That is the moral weapon in our hands. There is another weapon, a weapen which, alas! is usually more potent in human affairs, the economic and financial weapon. Why should not we turn openly and in the light of day to the other great pacific community in this world; why should we not turn to America and say to her, "We have all the economic and financial resources in our hands, and unless we use those resources for the imposition of peace upon the turmoil of Europe, then the very greatest disaster awaits mankind, a disaster for which we cannot possibly disclaim our responsibility."
Does anyone argue for a moment that if the appeal were made, and the issue in this matter were made clear, the great American community would fail to cooperate with us in the imposition of peace upon the more turbulent elements in the world? I contend that the imposition of peace is feasible. America and Great Britain in conjunction. having regard to their present financial situation, could effectually reduce any country which resisted them to a position of bankruptcy. They have that power within their grasp Why should we not make either on our
own, or if possible, in conjunction with America, some use of this immense weapon which is in our hands, one of the greatest weapons which has ever been at the disposal of any Power? I think in the event of our intervening actively, we should know beforehand the exact scope and limitations of our policy in advance. To intervene in a blundering fashion, not seeing every step of the policy which we are about to pursue in advance, is almost as bad as drifting aimlessly to disaster. We cannot charge into this situation like a bull in a china shop; we want to know exactly what we are going to do and where we are going to stop. There are two things we can do, and they are, appeal to the League to organise moral opinion and appeal to America to organise economic opinion. We should go so far and no further.
6.0 P.M.
Statesmanship should lay down in advance, and be careful to observe, one fundamental maxim, that not another drop of British blood is to be spent in the European quarrel. We should proceed thus far and stop short of any appeal to arms. I think it is a fact—unpalatable it may be, but none the less a fact—that the generation which bore the brunt of the last War has had enough of war. I do not think they are going to lift another finger to cleanse the Augean stable of European diplomacy. I do not believe they will consent to the pouring of another drop of British blood down the gaping drains of its seething animosities, its racial hatreds, and its atavistic prejudices. I do not believe they would consent to any such course; I do not believe that generation would fight again except in defence of their own homes, and I think it is perfectly useless for any Government in this country to appeal for an armed intervention in European affairs. Before we come to that point we must pursue the policy of withdrawal and isolation. In such a position we should witness a horrible spectacle, we should suffer the loss of our trade, but we should preserve from loss precious lives, too many of which we have already sacrificed. But even if such a policy of despair were pursued, even if we were reduced to that, we need not for a moment flatter ourselves that we should be immune from the very gravest dangers in the event of a European collapse. In
fact, we may be fairly certain that if that great catastrophe occurred, we should inevitably be overwhelmed in the ruin of that great collapse. Therefore, I urge on the Government to take their courage in their hands, as has already been demanded of them in the course of this discussion, to go forward with a real, a virile policy, a reasoned, thought-out policy of intervention. I believe that, if they refrain from doing that, we are in danger of enjoying something even more than the tranquillity which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister promised the country—I believe that Europe is in danger of enjoying the tranquillity of death. If this state of affairs continues, we, with other great communities of the past, shall be held in the cold embrace of that great tranquillity of all communities which have been found inert, limp, lethargic, nerveless, in the face of great trials and of great ordeals.
The two paths to which the alternative parties are pointing this country are very clearly marked. The Government are inviting us to be driven helplessly in front of the buffets of ever-changing fortune, along a path leading, as I believe, to that inevitable doom which invariably overwhelms hesitation, vacillation, and trembling weakness in human affairs. Those, on the other hand, who take the opposite view are inviting this country to traverse the path of action and of daring, beset though it be by menace, by difficulties, and by grave dangers, to advance in that path strong in the belief that by this means, and by this means alone, can be achieved the ultimate goal of security and of honour, to advance inspired by a belief in the greatest mission, as I see it, that destiny ever imposed upon the mighty spirit of an indomitable people.

Mr. THORNTON: As a new Member, I claim the indulgence of the House while I intervene in this Debate for a very few moments. I want particularly to emphasise a point of view that has not been emphasised sufficiently, though it has been referred to, in these frequent Debates which we have had on the Ruhr question, and that is our point of view. After all, charity begins at home, and we want, I think, to keep that in mind. Are we ever going to get anything out of the Germans? There is undoubtedly a dark body of opinion in this country who, rightly or wrongly, think that we are going to get
something out of Germany. Well, if we are not going to get anything out of the Germans, for heaven's sake let us say so and be done with it, but I, for one, though I may possess a sanguine and an optimistic temperament, have hopes that we shall eventually succeed in getting something out of the Germans. The actions of the French in the Ruhr undoubtedly, it seems to me, have postponed the possibility of out getting these reparations. What are His Majesty's Government doing about it? The hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) who has just spoken, with great eloquence has described the inactivity of His Majesty's Government, and I would ask that the Government should seriously consider the proposal that has been put forward from these benches. Various proposals have been made on this side, but, after all, I would submit that it is really the duty of His Majesty's Government to evolve a policy and to do something. The very latest pronouncement that we have had from the Prime Minister was in the Debate on the 6th March, when he said:
It is true that at this moment we have nothing we can propose to the House. It may be that to have no policy is had, but to have a policy which cannot succeed and which in itself is bad, would be even worse."—[OFFICIAL REPORT., 6th March, 1923; col.:365, Vol. 161.]
Cannot His Majesty's Government evolve some policy to see if it is possible for us to recover these reparations, which we think are rightly due to us from the German Government? I am not myself dwelling at all on the question as to whether the action of the French is right or wrong. Expert opinion in this House appears to be unanimous that the action of the French is wrong, but I am only dwelling on this side of the question, of the seriousness to us of postponing this matter of our reparations. I remember that when the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Prime Minister was speaking on the joint Amendment to the Address, he told us that a solicitor, before he issued execution, had to consider very carefully whether it was worth while to issue execution. I, for a time, belonged to the worst-paid profession in the world—that of the law. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I can assure hon. Members it is so. I seem to remember this point—and hon. and learned Members will correct me if I am wrong, because I am somewhat rusty
—that when execution had been executed, the execution creditor was not allowed to take the proceeds of anything that, he realised, but it was retained in the hands of the sheriff for 21 days.
To apply that analogy to the present situation, if the French Government do succeed in recovering anything from the Germans—it is true that we are told they are doing this mainly for security and not to recover reparation—but if they do succeed in recovering any money, are they to go off with the lot, are they to sweep the pool, or are His Majesty's Government seeing to it.? Have they any arrangements that any proceeds that are recovered from the German Government should be held, so that we shall have something out of it if there is anything going at all? My own knowledge of the French nation makes me think that the French, much as I admire them in many respects, are a very material nation, and if there is anything to be got out of Germany, they will get it. We could not have better debt collectors to recover reparations than the French nation. It is said that there are more misers die in France than in any other country in the world, so that if there is anything to be got, they will get it. I would ask the Government, as a simple matter of policy, have they any arrangement with the French Government to have any of the money that the French succeed in getting out of the Germans? There are many other speakers who wish to address the House, and I do not want to stand in their way on the first occasion on which I address it. I thank hon. Members very much for the indulgence they have extended to me.

Mr. HERBERT FISHER: Though I cannot attempt to emulate the rich and variously tinted eloquence of the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley), I associate myself with hint, and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Spell Valley (Sir J. Simon), in their protest against the settled policy of inertia which His Majesty's Government have thought fit to adopt in face of the grave situation in the Ruhr. The situation there is becoming more and more difficult and more and more dangerous as time goes on. It is also giving rise to apprehensions of the very gravest character throughout the Continent of Europe. We have had two French officers murdered, we have indications
of a rising temper of indignation in France, there are rumours—no doubt, absurd rumours—going about Germany that France proposes to march either to Munich, or to Hamburg, or to Hanover, and there is a general feeling of alarm and unsettlement throughout the Continent, which will be aggravated as week passes after week, month after month, and nothing is done. The French occupation of the Ruhr, as the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Thornton), who made such an interesting maiden speech, has pointed out, does affect our interests very directly. It affects the area at present occupied by our troops, it affects our trade directly and indirectly, and it affects our prospects of obtaining reparations from Germany: and in that connection I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question.
In 1921 an arrangement was made between Great Britain, France, Belgium and Italy, in virtue of which each of these contracting parties was entitled to levy 25 per cent. upon German imports, and we have in effect been raising a revenue by this method. I understand that one of the results of the French military occupation of the Ruhr has been the imposition of a 10 per cent. duty upon goods coming to this country, and I should like to ask my hon. Friend what steps, if any, the Government have taken to represent to the French Government the consequences of their action upon the agreement into which we have both entered. Now we learn from the newspapers that the French Prime Minister has gone to Brussels to consult with the Belgian Government with respect to the terms which are to be offered to Germany, and I presume that at this Conference at Brussels arrangements will be made settling the conditions under which France would be prepared to evacuate the districts in Germany which she has recently occupied. These transactions are transactions in which this country has a very direct and a very important interest. We have a much greater interest in the matter of reparations than has Belgium. Are we to allow these important questions, directly affecting our interests, to be settled in our absence by the French and Belgian Prime Ministers? Are we not even to be represented at this Conference at Brussels? America is not herself directly concerned with the question of
reparations. America is not claiming reparations. At the same time, the American Government have on previous occasions been represented by agents, who have watched the course of events, at Conferences at which these questions have been handled. Are our interests being watched at Brussels? I hope my hon. Friend will be able to give an assurance on that point.
I come back to the principal question which causes anxiety on these Benches. It is quite obvious that the settlement arrived at at Versailles between France and Germany no longer gives satisfaction to the French people. It is quite obvious to everybody that according to the recent declarations of M. Poincaré that he desires—and he has public opinion in France behind him—a profound modification in the terms of the Versailles Treaty which was the result of the joint discussion of the British, the French, and the other Allies. Are we to look on while the basis of the Treaty of Versailles is overturned without attempting to make the voice of Great Britain heard? Are we to allow these grave matters to be settled in our absence? Is nothing to be done to put forward the British point of view, and to secure for that point of view a chance of being heard when the whole territorial settlement is jeopardy? I do earnestly protest against a policy of inertia. I say so, and I have said so twice already when this subject has come up, for it is impossible that the question of reparation and security for France can be adequately, effectively, and satisfactorily settled except by international conference. I believe it will be necessary that America should take part in that conference. I desire that conference to be, if possible, under the auspices of the League of Nations, reinforced by America, but before such a conference is held I think that this House does desire to know what steps the Government are taking to put what I may call the British point of view, and the international point of view before the attention of the French and Belgian Government. They are apparently under the impression that these are matters which they can settle without consulting this country, and without reference to the moral judgment of the civilised world.

Colonel GRETTON: I feel impelled to put a point of view which is not very divergent from that of the right
hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, for I also, with many others, am disturbed and uneasy as to what the inertia of the Government means. Political events do not stand still. A policy of isolation has proved itself in the past to be one of the most disastrous policies in which this country can engage. We tried as nearly as we could for years before the War to disassociate ourselves from active participation in the affairs of the Continent. It was very largely the policy of inertia, pursued by more than one Government, which led to the catastrophe of the Great War. Even the United States will find—and history and observation confirm the view—that although separated from Europe by 3,000 miles of ocean they will not be able to isolate themselves from the major affairs of the European continent; therefore, it is quite evident that the, Government of this country must sooner or later take action. What action do they contemplate? We cannot look upon the state of affairs in Europe unless we are associated with some Allies.
It is, I think, the universal desire of the people of this country that her Allies should be France, Italy and Belgium. Yet on a matter which is most vital to France, the recovery of reparations, we have most carefully and most persistently disassociated ourselves from those efforts to recover compensation and reparation from Germany which France considers vital to her economic existence. That is the root-cause of all our troubles. Out of that disassociation from France arises the difficulties which we had in the Near East in negotiating terms of peace. With France and England united the major difficulties which have occurred would soon disappear. Does the Government intend to pursue this policy of isolation until it leads to a greater evil? Every step that France takes is denounced by certain persons in this country, and by a section of the Press, while one hon. Member to-night cent so far as to inform the House that they were unanimous in disapproval of the course undertaken, and disassociated themselves from all French action.
Those of us who hold that the Government is taking a wrong course feel that if we, at the earlier stage, had actively supported France to ensure her claim for reparation, and had held ourselves ready
to assist her—at any rate, up to a point—in any action which she might consider necessary to take—many of us believe, and have grounds for believing, that if we had done that, by now the occupation of the Ruhr district would probably have accomplished, or practically accomplished, its purpose. The present position is one which causes the greatest alarm. I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just delivered his maiden speech, upon which I congratulate him. He said that in these matters we had to consider ourselves as well as our Allies, and our own safety. The future of our policy will be determined by the course the Government take during the next few weeks. The universal opinion of the people outside, so far as I can ascertain it, is that, France had a right to take action to recover reparation from Germany. All the evidence shows—there is no doubt of it—that. Germany is approaching a stage when the German authorities will be forced to negotiate and endeavour to come to terms. Where shall we be? England, France and Belgium have made terms with the German Government to exact reparation. How, if we have ostentatiously continued to disassociate ourselves from all action that leads to payment, can we expect to get anything on account of our claims? Of course, we cannot. It will be a bitter disappointment to the large majority of our people outside the House if the course this Government takes leads to final banishment of all prospect of payment from Germany. I must confess to the most profound uneasiness. People outside believe that the safety of ourselves and the peace of the world depend not upon the League of Nations, for the League has no power or authority to deal with the great issues of foreign affairs. Our future must depend upon finding ourselves associating with allies, whose main course in the affairs of the world is similar to, and coincident with, our own, and whose united authority may be relied upon to secure the peace and security of the world.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The speech just delivered clearly indicates the feeling that of necessity exists on this question of France and the economic position. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded his speech by saying that the duty of this country was to seek friends and
friendship with those whose economic interests are, at least, similar to our own. If there is one fact that stands out clear in connection with this matter, it is this: that the economic interests of France and our own are not only not identical, but are in absolute conflict. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman can discuss this mater without reference to party, and with the working or commercial classes, he will find a very different view to that which he himself has stated. The Government to-night are in a somewhat difficult situation. There has not been a solitary speech delivered in favour of their policy. The only difference between the Debate and the four previous Debates is that there are not any new arguments, but that, everything that was predicted has gradually and, unfortunately, come true. That is the difference between previous Debates and this.
I just want to refer to a telegram which I myself read to-day, or yesterday, which charged the French military with rioting and robbing the German Railwaymen's Union, and compelling the members to sign a declaration that they would work 10 hours instead of eight. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promptly denied the accuracy of that statement, and he said that it was impossible, and he could not believe it. I have been to the scene of action since, and I had with me yesterday those who were in the office, and I can produce the original document, and I add to my statement to-day that not only is that the action of the French military in the occupied area, but they have insisted upon every trade union being compelled to send to the military a notice of their meetings, a list of their agenda papers and the speakers before any trade, union meeting is allowed to be held, and they have also to furnish the names of their officials. The first question I ask upon that is whether that action is calculated to bring about good feeling with regard to this question. Instead of the German working classes, many of whom were bitter and angry against their own rulers immediately following the Armistice, as was evidenced by the revolution, instead of those people taking their stand against a repetition of the old military regime, the action of France is driving them absolutely into the opposite camp.
I want the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs to answer two specific questions.
In the first place, is it true, or does the Foreign Office know that the Prime Minister of Sweden, who was a delegate to the last League of Nations Conference, in a statement to his Chamber a fortnight ago said that he could not give a report of the proceedings of the last League of Nations Conference unless the whole of the Press and the public were excluded. That was the, statement made by M. Branting, the Prime Minister of Sweden, to his own King. It is no secret that that statement had connection with the French developments and the French situation, and what I would like to ask is whether, if the position is that a delegate to the Conference like the Prime Minister of Sweden declares to his own Parliament that the position is so serious as to warrant them sitting in camera, how is it that we, having delegates there, not only have not been told anything about this matter, but so far as any report of the proceedings are concerned, this House is in entire ignorance.

Mr. McNEILL: To what Conference is the right hon. Gentleman referring?

Mr. THOMAS: There were two Conferences. One of them was held in February in connection with the League of Nations, at which we were represented, and the other was the Disarmaments Conference in connection with the League of Nations, at both of which we had representatives, and at both of which M. Branting was the representative of Sweden. I ask this question for this reason. We have been told, and the British public has been continuously told, about the poverty of France, and we all know the debt of France to this country. We all know of the repeated explanations that, so far us France is concerned, she cannot meet her obligations to us, and that the only means of hope or salvation is the occupation of the Ruhr and the demand and receipt of reparations that will follow. One can hardly reconcile that with the fact that the French Government, within the last three months, has voted and sent for 100,000,000 gold francs to Poland, as well as 20 shiploads of munitions which have left the French ports for Poland. At this moment there are at least 30,000 French officers training the Polish Army.
What deduction do we draw from that? Here you have 400,000,000 francs voted to Poland, munitions being sent there, and
French officers training the Polish Army. Everybody knows that this is being deliberately done with the object of making an attack on Russia. It cannot be denied that this sum of money has been voted, because that knowledge is public property in the French Chamber. It cannot be denied that the munitions have been sent, and that the French officers are training the Polish soldiers. I think we are entitled to be told what this money is being spent for in this conection. We are entitled to ask that question, and to draw one conclusion. Who else is there in the vicinity of Poland that France would be likely to make these preparations against? I say to the Foreign Secretary, and to those who are following this question, that the two incidents I have mentioned cannot be dissociated from the apprehension that is felt with regard to the general French policy, and our difficulty is to know what action our own Government is taking.
It is reported that, commencing Monday of this week, a new arrangement was arrived at last week between ourselves and the French Government for the working of the railways. The situation at the moment is that 120,000 railwaymen are on strike, and have been on strike for some weeks in the Ruhr. No less than 12,000 French railwaymen have been sent there to do their work. Everyone who knows anything about the situation there must be perfectly aware that six times that actual number of railwaymen could not even do the work. Imagine those who are innocently talking about the French getting reparations and saying France is winning, assuming that the railways, which are the most complicated in the world, can be run by 12,000 foreigners, knowing nothing of the system, and, in addition, to all the accidents you do not hear anything about, which are kept absolutely quiet, the whole place is paralysed from beginning to end. Can we stand silently by, when the new agreement made between our Government last week means that we are letting the French do what they like That is the situation which has resulted from this agreement. What has developed there? Here are two German papers. In one you will observe that the censor has blotted everything out, but this other is an original copy which they did not manage to blot
out, and in this copy there is really an appeal by the responsible German people and the responsible editor of that paper begging the German workers not to do anything that will provoke a riot or an outrage.
Why are they making that appeal? Simply because you cannot speak to anyone on the Continent or in Germany at this moment who will not tell you that their grave fear Is that, with the troops being supplied with drink and being fully armed, someone will be shot, as has already happened, and then in the words of Monsieur Poincaré, deliberate reprisals will take place. That is what they fear, and it is because they have done something to avoid that and appeal to the masses that the French military authorities have censored this paper and struck out the news in the manner I have indicated. I can only repeat what I said on the last occasion. We have been asked what would Germany have done under similar circumstances. I ask this House to picture what would have been the situation in this country if the incidents that are taking place in Germany took place in this country even by the action of the Germans themselves? We all know perfectly well that they would have been bitterly resented.
There is one other danger. Scheidemann, who was the first Prime Minister of Germany following the revolution, and who took very definite steps in order to bring home to Germany a full recognition that something must be done, said we must clear out of every office all those responsible for the old régime. Two days ago he wrote an article in which he said: The one thing that he feared more than anything else was the new power which the French occupation would give to those who were responsible for the War which we all deplored. The hon. Gentleman opposite and my hon. Friend (Mr. Thornton), in an excellent maiden speech, said he hoped that we shall be able to share in what France is going to get from Germany in the shape of reparations. I have never yet heard any hon. Member in this House tell us what they mean if France succeeds. I have not even seen in the Press any general indication on this point. The general phrase is that France is marching into the Ruhr to get reparations. It is admitted that there is no coal, and if they want marks they can
print them themselves. It is proved that they cannot get coal, and what are they doing? They are merely piling up a Bill that the French people will demand an explanation of later on. It is for all these reasons that we cannot support the Motion which is before the House, and this House will be wanting in its duty if hon. Members do not persist in demanding from the Government that they must tell the House and the country what they know of French intentions and whether they know what France really is doing. Above all, as the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) said, if there are any people in this House or outside who believe that the great mass of our fellow countrymen are going to be involved in another war, if they think for a moment that they will be able to mobilise our people for another war, they will meet with a very rude awakening.

Mr. HAROLD GRAY: I listened last Session, and again this Session, with great regret and surprise to the attacks made on our French Allies by hon. Members on the other side of the House. I know our memories are proverbially short. We very soon forget our friends and we very soon forgive our enemies. It is not. so with the French. They cannot forget the days in 1914–15, when they stood with oar men in the long lines of trenches. They cannot forget what occurred in 1918 when the Germans broke through the English lines. The French cannot be expected to forget all these things as we do. I cannot understand by what right we presume to dictate to France. France is not isolated as Germany is. France has her Allies. Appeals have been constantly made to America to help us to coerce France. Why should we appeal thus to America? Surely, now we have arranged to pay our debt to that country, it is no longer necessary for us to continually cringe to her. Can we forget that it was America which for two years before she came info the War practically squeezed us dry, and only then came into the War? I do not understand this principle of appealing to America. The only chance we ever had of securing reparations was in 1918–1919, when the late Prime Minister and the President of the United States went to Paris to draw up the Treaty of Versailles. At that time we robbed France of the fruits of
her victory. If we had then gone into the Ruhr we should have got reparations, and there would have been none of these difficulties. The trouble we are in is due to the action of the right hon. Gentleman who then represented this country, who misled France and has been misleading her ever since. We are giving far too much consideration to the commercial side of this question. I am strongly of opinion that the country will feel we are taking the wrong line, and that the, Government have made a mistake. If they had gone into the, Ruhr with France we should have done better. Now, as it is, if France wins she will win in spite of us, and if she loses we shall have lost her confidence. I do not want this Government to go down to history as a Government which has mistaken a policy of timidity for one of tranquillity.

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I rise to ask a specific question of the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and I shall be glad if he can clear up, in the course of his reply, one or two of the difficulties affecting trade between this country and the Ruhr area which have arisen at the present time. I should like to put this case not because T. think it is the most important aspect of the question, for there are very large questions of international policy involved. Apart from those, the action which has been taken by the French authorities to-day is causing a great deal of ill-feeling between the trading community of thin country and France, and it is undoubtedly doing a considerable amount of harm to British trade. This specific case I want to put is one that has been given to me. it is the case of the steamship "Badenia," which left. Cologne on 2nd March and came down the Rhine with a cargo of goods, British owned and consigned to the United Kingdom, having complied with all the necessary formalities. She was held up at the French Customs barrier at Ruhrort by French Customs officials, who boarded her and demanded a 10 per cent. duty on the British goods, and when payment of this was declined ordered her back to Cologne and stated that unless the money was paid within eight days the cargo would be confiscated. That appears to be the working of this 10 per cent. arrangement. It is, of course, specially harmful to British trade with the British occupied parts of Germany.
It seems to affect also the transit trade from the unoccupied parts of Germany which passes through the occupied parts under British occupation. Goods coming from Germany into Britain at the present time pay 26 per cent. reparations duty, and on top of that they are now called upon to pay an extra 10 per cent., while goods from Germany to France or Belgium do not have to pay that 26 per cent., so that goods imported into Britain now apparently pay 36 per cent. duty, which clearly means a serious handicap to British trade. The result is that there are at the present moment hundreds of tons of British goods lying in the Thames unable to get into Germany, while in the Cologne area British goods actually sent from Cologne are unable to get, here. Perhaps the, Under-Secretary will tell us if the reparation dyestuffs which are the property of the British Government have to pay this 10 per cent., if the British Government do pay it, and if that extra charge is passed on to the British consumers of dyestuffs in this country? Some part of my question has been answered already, because 10 minutes ago I gathered from the Under-Secretary that this particular ship had been released at Cologne and was sailing at once.
But what does that mean to British trade? Does it mean that the transit trade from the unoccupied areas can now come clown the Rhine and be free from these charges, or does it mean that they will still have to pay them? I think from the point of view of British trade and commerce we should really know what is being done, Let us remember that in the Treaty itself these waters of the Rhine are international waters and the imposition of the duty of 10 per cent. I venture to submit is quite inconsistent with the Treaty of Versailles. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can tell us whether that is the case 'and whether the Treaty itself provides for the 'free navigation of the Rhine? Under these circumstances, for the French Army of Occupation to come in and levy a tariff, there looks singularly like the original procedure which gave its name to a tariff. It was, originally, a sum of money which was paid to pirates to anew, your boats to proceed. The trade along this trade route is being entirely held 'up. Perhaps the Government has been able to succeed in doing
something. I hear some representations have been made to the Allied Commission at Coblenz. Is it not possible to set up some British authority in the British occupied area to which cases in dispute where British traders are concerned may be referred, or are we to be entirely at the mercy of the Franco-Belgian authorities to do whatever they like to interfere with and stop British trade. That is all I wish to ask on this specific point. It is one of the causes of the inconvenience which is being inflicted on us by the action of our Ally. But there are far more important questions involved than that, and I agree with the hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. Gray) in the sentence in which he said that our memories are short. I would explain the meaning I attach to that. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), speaking earlier in the Debate, warned Members on this side of the House against the great danger of throwing the whole Treaty of Versailles into the melting pot. I think he might also have remembered the danger arising from these infractions of the Treaty of Versailles which are taking place from day to day.
7.0 P.M.
I agree with him that the whole thing ought not to be thrown into the melting pot. Perhaps the best thing you can say of a bad Peace Treaty like that of Versailles, is that, unlike other Peace Treaties, it does contain within itself machinery for its own revision. There are several Clauses in the Treaty which deliberately provided for a revision within the actual machinery of the Treaty, and it is those Clauses and that machinery which I think we ought to use. One of the signatories of the Treaty of Versailles—I well remember at the time—General Smuts, signed it with the definite statement that he had done so only because it contained within itself the machinery for its own revision. He said that the figures of the indemnity and reparations were far too high: that there were territorial settlements which would have to be revised, and that there were many sanctions contemplated at that moment which cooler judgment and wiser experience would lead us to forego. It is in that spirit we ought to contemplate the revision of the Treaty in certain respects.
The hon. Member said that our memories were short. I agree. What is
happening to-day is what has happened more than once in Europe. It happened after the Peace of 1870. Moltke then said that he must take Lorraine, because it he did not it would mean the loss of an army corps. What he did not see, but what events have proved, is that the taking of Lorraine meant a new war, in which he would lose his army corps. I think it is a better precedent to remember what happened in 1815, if that is not too great a strain upon our memories. Almost exactly the same thing happened. There was the same desire to dismember our prostrate enemy. At that time Prussia wished to do with France what France is now manifestly wishing to do with Germany. What happened then? Then there were statesmen at the helm of English affairs who did not adopt the policy of inertia—the Duke of Wellington, and Castlereagh—those are names that ought to appeal to the Government Bench. We were able to stop Prussia from the unwise policy of the dismemberment of France, which she was pressing. I am afraid I have revised many of my historical judgments, but I cannot help thinking that the Duke of Wellington, and Castlereagh were wiser than the men of 1918 with regard to the Treaty of Versailles. They demanded a fixed indemnity, high according to the opinion of that time. They occupied territory for a limited period, but the occupation was over in comparatively short time. In fact, by refusing to dismember France they made a peace which has lasted up to the present time, in spite of all these strains. We have taken an unwise course, a course which certainly does not shine by comparison; but at least the statesmen of those days, when they were faced by the attempt to dismember their enemy, did not adopt this policy of inertia or allow themselves merely to be dragged at the heels of their Allies. They found means, in their time, to prevent what would have been an international crime, and what would again have led to a great war. We are sitting still; we are folding our hands while the irrevocable steps are being taken, the ultimate result of which can only be to bring about in future that great international war which, in my view, will mean the downfall of civilisation, nothing short of that, and the relapse of European civilisation into chaos and barbarism.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I had no intention until a few minutes ago of taking part in this Debate, and I only rise now for two reasons. One is that it should not be thought by our Allies, the French, that the volume of oratory we have heard to-day, in criticism of the action of France and largely in support of the action of Germany, is a true indication of the sympathies of this country with our French Allies. The second reason why I rose is to answer the challenge made a few moments ago by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), in which he said that no one had ever yet been able to ascertain what was the real object of France's occupation of the Ruhr. Quoting words which were used by an hon. Gentleman on the same side of the House, the right hon. Member said: "What does it mean if France succeeds?" That is a question that has been asked again and again, not only in this House, but throughout the country. We have been told that France is not getting as much coal now as she received before the occupation; that she has stopped the payment of reparations and caused other troubles which have not benefited herself. The reason, of course, is that which was given with such force in the House on 5th May, 1921, by the late Prime Minister, in words which are very much more forcible and better than any I could frame myself. It is only one sentence, and I venture to remind the House once again what it was. The late Prime Minister said:
When we talk about compelling Germany to pay,' and about using coercive measures, it is really compelling the German people to face disagreeable facts, and they will not do that unless the alternative is more disagreeable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1921; col. 1288, Vol. 141.]
Therefore, it is idle for us to say that this action of the French is wrong because they are not immediately getting more coal or the payment of reparations. The whole object is the object as stated to the French by the present Prime Minister in Paris, when he told them that if in six months the Germans showed they were not going to comply with the British demands, Great Britain, too, would be standing side by side with France in occupying further territory. It is the same point which was urged by the late Prime Minister, supported by the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) and the right hon. Member for
Platting (Mr. Clynes); that of making Germany realise her responsibilities by occupying more of her territory if she failed in the indemnities which she had agreed to pay.
I see the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) in his place. As I ventured to ask him to quote specific words from the Treaty, there is one other point I would like to make. In his opening remarks, the right hon. Gentleman commented on the fact that the Government had not taken the advice of the law officers on the meaning of the Treaty. I am not so skilled in the law as the right hon. Gentleman, but if words have any meaning this Clause in the Treaty seems to me to be plain. The right hon. Gentleman read the Clause, but he did not place the emphasis as I would venture to place it. He put the emphasis on the first words; I venture to place it on the later. If the right hon. Gentleman and the House will forgive me, I will read the Clause again. I cannot see how there can be any doubt whatever, whether we think it desirable or not, as to the right of France to take the action she has done. Paragraph 18, Annex II, Part VIII of the Treaty says:
The measures which the Allied and Associated Powers shall have the right to take, in case of voluntary default by Germany, and which Germany agrees not to regard as acts of war, may include economic and financial prohibitions and reprisals and in general such other measures as the respective Governments "—
Those are the words I desire to emphasise—
may determine to be necessary in the circumstances.
I cannot for the life of me sec, if it were not intended that the respective Governments should have the right under the Treaty to take action, if they saw fit to do so, by reason of Germany being in voluntary default, why that right should have been expressly provided for. If it were intended that action could only be taken by the Allied and Associated Powers if they were in agreement, surely those words would have been used again in that paragraph of the Treaty.
It is unfortunate that we should be so meticulous in looking at what France has done. She has only done what the Prime Minister, the lath Prime Minister, and the previous Prime Minister have agreed
was the proper course to take in the event of Germany making voluntary default. I cannot see why so many hon. Members in the present House of Commons should join in criticising action, to which this House, as a body, agreed only a short time ago. They should remember, when criticising the action of France, that we definitely agreed in advocating that action ourselves, and they should concentrate on what is far more important, the default of Germany. Germany has defaulted in many ways; notably, in regard to the deliveries of timber. I do not think there could be a more scandalous instance of default than that. One-fourth of the whole of the German Empire is under timber. Germany during the War, used the timber of the Allies whose countries she occupied. We, in this country, during the last three years have imported something like £180,000.000 of timber. For Germany to have made default. above everything else, in the delivery of timber, is one of the most flagrant abuses of which she could have been guilty.
Again, when we are criticising France, and saying she has prevented Germany from paying Reparations due to us, we seem to have forgotten altogether about the wilful inflation of the currency which Germany has caused through the use of her printing press. The whole plan of Germany, from first to last, has been to evade her obligations. Naturally, now, when she sees speech after speech delivered in the British House of Commons supporting the view she has taken, she is only too willing to go forward on her plan of passive or possibly active resistance to the occupation by France; an occupation which with our help might long ago have resulted in getting Germany to realise her responsibilities and to put forward a proposal which the Allies could accept. I do hope that the Government will stand by what the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs told the people of this country, and also the people of France, in the first speech that was made after the breakdown of the Conference in Paris, namely, that we are still united to the French in principle, however we may differ from them as to method; and, as I have pointed out in this House before, I think we cannot very well say that we substantially differ from them in regard to method either.

Mr. ASQUITH: I will not follow the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, in his examination of the legal construction of the Treaty of Versailles, but perhaps I may be allowed to say that, when you are approaching the construction of a legal instrument, it is not a question of emphasis. It does not depend upon vocal inflection or rotund elocution. The intention is to be gathered from careful study of the context in which the words occur, and of the instrument as a whole; and the interpretation which seems to the hon. Member so easy and so obvious is one which I can assure him is not shared by a very large number of the most distinguished lawyers in Europe. However, that is by the way. I have only risen in order to make a complaint—a good-humoured complaint, I hope—of the manner in which the Government have allowed this Debate to be conducted. I have really nothing to add to the interrogatories which were put or to the arguments which were used in opening the Debate by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), but the whole point of his speech was this, that, since we last debated this matter—and I agree that we have debated it more than once, and, indeed, more than twice, in the course of the last Session—since we last debated it, new facts of great importance, and new considerations, have entered into the case which make it extremely desirable, for the information, not only of the House of Commons, but of the country, that we should know whether, in view of what is in some respects a transformation, the Government still adhere to the policy of passivity which they announced on the first night of the Session.
I should have thought it was proper, and in accordance with precedent and with convenience, that at an early stage in the Debate we should have learned from the Government Bench what the policy of the Government was, and what reply, if any, was to be given to the questions which were put by my right hon. and learned Friend. I confess I was looking forward to that, in the hope that I might have some opportunity of commenting upon any declarations that the Government might make; but we are now approaching the compulsory termination of the Debate, and have still to hear, as I understand, from the Under-Secretary what the Government policy is. I have
no more idea at this moment than I had when I entered the House what they are going to tell us, or in what direction they are now directing our international efforts.
This is not a mere captious criticism. Let me repeat the grounds upon which we allege, and I believe the whole House recognises, that there has been a vital change in the situation. The first is the new development which has been given to this Ruhr adventure by the extension of the French sphere of military activity beyond the Ruhr, beyond the left bank of the Rhine and over the right bank. I was refreshing my memory this morning by looking at the very concise and excellent Blue-book which describes what took place at the two Conferences, the one held in. London last December, and the other in Paris in the first week of the present year. I looked particularly at the statements made by M. Poincaré here in London in December, because I want the House to realise how complete is the change that has come over the original French policy. M. Poincaré said this:
He would now imagine himself, in company with all the Allies, to he in occupation of Essen and Bochum, and would give an idea what he would say to the Germans. He must, however, prelude this by saying he was quite at ease with regard to the execution of the operation, and did not anticipate any difficulty. In three hours, without any mobilisation, without any offensive militarism or Imperialism, the Allied forces now in certain occupied areas would be established in the heart of the German industrial region, in the centre of the mines and manufactures.
Then, in pointing out the circumscribed, and, indeed, restricted character of the operations, he used the words which have already been quoted by my right hon. and learned Friend, and which I will quote again, namely:
M. Poincaré explained that time whole of his proposals referred only to the parts of the Ruhr in the neutral zone, as fixed under the Treaty of Versailles, and that he contemplated no action outside the neutral zone.
All that has gone by the board. I will not say anything about the illusory anticipations as to the ease with which even the limited operations would be conducted; but the whole scope of the operation itself has been, as we now know, enormously extended, and, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, there really does not seem to be any reason, in the nature of things, why the French should
not go on to Munich, and possibly even to Berlin. That is a new element in the case, never contemplated or dreamed of in any of the proceedings at these Conferences, and expressly repudiated by M. Poincaré when he was in London as lately as last December. The House is entitled to know, and I am sure the Government are ready to give us, their views as to what modification that makes in their conception of their own duties.
That is one point. There is another which is equally important, and in which we here in this country have a very direct national interest—I mean the complete encirclement of that part of German territory which is occupied by British forces. That, as was pointed out with chapter and verse by my right hon. and learned Friend in opening the Debate, and by several other speakers, has already resulted, not only in injury and detriment, but practically in the strangulation of the very important British trade, export, and import, in that part of the world. It is not an academic question; it is not a question even of the construction of the Treaty; it is a question in which the direct material interests of our own traders, manufacturers and merchants are vitally concerned. I hope the Government will tell us about that.
Further, in relation to, and, indeed, to some extent consequential upon, this new method of encirclement, we should like to know what, is the railway position. We know that negotiations have been going on between the two Governments, but I do not know, and I doubt whether anyone in the House knows, whether any final agreement has been arrived at, and, in particular, whether the British trader—because it is not a mere question of passenger facilities, but quite as much of trade facilities—now has a railway service at his disposal which will enable him, both by way of import and export, to deal freely with the unoccupied parts of Germany. Have we received any quid pro quo for the concession which we made to the French in allowing the transport of troops and military stores across our area, and, if so, what have we got? The position, as my right hon. and learned Friend pointed Out, is perfectly intolerable. In regard to water-borne goods, we pay an import
duty to the French at Düsseldorf, or wherever it may be, and then we pay an export duty, or, at least, so I understand, because you have to pay an import duty in Germany as well. All that requires to be elucidated, and it would have been very desirable that we should have had some information on these points earlier in the Debates.
I do not want to abridge the time which my hon. Friend will be entitled to take, and ought to take, in explaining these matters, but that brings me to the practical point of what the Government ought to do. The French are avowedly pursuing this adventure, for such I must call it, with a double purpose—to obtain reparations and to safeguard security. Those are both objects which they are absolutely within their rights in pursuing, and are entitled to pursue. No one in any quarter of the House will deny that they are entitled to pursue those objects, provided that they pursue them by means which are sanctioned by the Treaty, and which are reasonably likely to be efficacious for the purpose. I venture to ask, does anyone in France now consider the method which has been chosen to be well advised, felicitious, or likely to be fruitful? It is, as I have said, far in advance of anything that was, I will not say promised, but was even contemplated by M. Poincaré. It is inflicting very great injury upon ourselves, it is not bringing in reparations, and it is not, so far as I can make out, promoting security. On the contrary, it is inflaming passions, embittering animosity, and giving rise, as we have seen in the course of the last few days, to bloodshed and reprisals. Surely, if ever there was a case in which it was the duty of the British Government to have a policy, and to pursue that policy with vigour and with resolution, this is that case.
I return again to the suggestion that I made on the first night of the Session. In that respect I have no hostile criticism to make upon the speech of my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord B. Cecil). I quite agree that the precise moment for particular action is a matter which must, to some extent, at any rate, be left in the discretion of the Executive. Surely there can no longer be any doubt that this matter is urgent in the very highest possible degree. Whatever doubts there may have been, its urgency now is
manifest, and speaks for itself. Let me once more repeat the material part of the article which my right hon. and learned Friend quoted in the earlier part of the Debate, namely, Article II of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which stands in the forefront of the Treaty of Versailles, as well as all the other international obligations into which we have entered during the last four years. The second paragraph says:
It is declared to be the friendly right "—
I lay stress upon the word "friendly" there is nothing hostile in intention or in spirit meant by that
of each member of the League to bring to the attention of the Assembly or of the Council any circumstance whatever affection international relations which threatens to disturb international peace or the good understanding between nations upon which peace depends.
Could the present situation be described more accurately than in those words? The conditions prescribed by that Article have been brought into existence. It would be a friendly act, as I conceive it, and as such I urge it upon the Government to bring the matter in both its aspects, both in the aspect of reparation and in the aspect of security, before the League of Nations. I do not know what relative proportion of importance the French Government attach to the two aspects of the matter, but I suspect that, as regards the people, the general body of public opinion in France, much more importance is attached, and I think rightly attached, to the question of security than to the question of reparation. That is why I attach so much importance myself to bringing the matter before the Council of the League, because the League ought to be able, and I believe it is within the power of the League, without any offence to France—indeed, on the contrary, with a solicitous regard for French interests—to devise a pact of defence between its constituent members which will secure France against the dangers which are not wholly imaginary. If I were a Frenchman I should feel that they were very real dangers—dangers which every Frenchman has always looming upon the horizon of his imagination, which arise from that unprotected boundary of the river Rhine. I do not say, because it would be foolishness to say, what precise form that pact of defence and security ought to take,
and what precise area it ought to cover. It is a matter which would require the most careful consideration. It is the only way—the Anglo-American guarantee has gone and through no fault of ours—and the only real substitute that we can give to France, the only one which will allay the fears and susceptibilities which dominate the French mind, and the only one which would provide complete international security and peace in the years to come. Here is a sovereign opportunity to bring the League of Nations into operation, not in a small matter, not in a matter of adjusting boundaries between this country and that country, but in a matter which affects the whole future security of Europe. So far from being a hostile act to France, I should regard it as an act in the spirit of purest friendship for our Ally, at whose side we fought, and for whom we have not lost in any degree a sense of obligation, gratitude, and comradeship, to refer this matter without delay to the Council of the League of Nations. I press that policy strongly upon the Government, and I believe that they will be rendering as great a service as it is possible to render to Europe and the world if they would take action in the sense that. I have suggested.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken complained twice that the view of the Government had not been placed before the House earlier in the afternoon. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] I very much regret if I have given any cause of offence. I can assure the House that it was with the intention of doing what we thought would be satisfactory, because as it was known that there was only going to he half a Parliamentary day for this Debate, one speech from this bench would be as much, probably, as the House would care to put up with, If I had spoken oaf behalf of the Foreign Office earlier, it would have involved either the Prime Minister or some other Member of the Government in speaking later. Therefore, perhaps mistakenly, out of consideration as we thought for the House, I reserved what. I have to say until now.
All the speakers in this Debate, whatever point of view they have taken, have agreed on one thing, and that is in
recognising that we are dealing with an extremely serious situation. No one recognises that more than the Government. If I may respectfully say so with regard to the speeches of the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith)—and I only wish some of those who sit on the same side of the House would follow his example—I do not think I have ever heard the right hon. Gentleman make a speech on these difficult topics without expressing a very generous appreciation of the difficulties of our French Allies, and a very genuine desire to be fair and generous to them. It has struck me, in listening to the debate, that the remark of one of my hon. Friends behind me was well justified, namely, that our memories are short. There are certain fundamentals of the whole situation that one would have thought had slipped out of our minds as one listened to the debate. The first fundamental is that Germany is a defaulter. Germany has set her hand to a Treaty which she has not carried out. I am not now discussing how far and how serious those defaults were, or whether or not she could have avoided them. The fact remains, that Germany has made a Treaty and that she has defaulted from the carrying out of that Treaty.
Do not let us forget what Germany did in the War. The right hon. Member for Paisley certainly did not mince his words on that subject in denouncing the criminal responsibility of Germany. I can well remember, in fact, I think, the exact words he used were that Germany had been guilty of one of the greatest crimes perpetrated in the history of the world. It is too soon to forget that. Speaking quite generally and broadly, I think we ought to bear in mind, in discussing the very serious difficulties which have undoubtedly arisen, and with which we have to deal, that underlying fact, and the correlative fact that this Government, this House, and, I am convinced, this country, are still friendly to France, and that they desire, as far as it is possible to do so, consistently with what is right and with the observance Of the definite interests of ourselves and the rest of Europe, to remain friends and Allies of France. That being so, I am inclined to complain of the tone of censoriousness in which this debate has been conducted.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) opened the Debate, and anyone coming into the House in the middle of his very eloquent and very well-reasoned speech would naturally have inferred that he was making one of his characteristic assaults upon the Government. That would have been a very natural and very proper thing for him to do, and no one could do it better. The visitor would have been rather surprised if ho had learned that the—I will not say invective—the very strong attack of the right hon. Gentleman was not against a Government to which he was opposed, but against the French Government with which we are in alliance. That was the tone not only of the right hon. Gentleman hut of a great many of those who have spoken.
I should like to protest against our giving ourselves any airs of superiority. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] I am glad that that sentiment meets with such general acceptance. Probably it is because in this House there is no attitude in any quarter of the House which is more resented by the House than when any hon. Member gives himself airs of superiority. Surely, what is true of Members of this House among ourselves is also true of nations among themselves, and I can imagine nothing which must he more offensive to our French friends and Allies than that we in this Reuse should, time after time, be giving ourselves airs of superiority over them for what they have done. I agree with the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) that our difference with France is a difference not really of principle hut a difference of method. This country cannot say that to occupy the Ruhr with a military force, as a sanction for a default of the Treaty, is a thing wrong in itself, because we prepared to do it. Only two years ago the late Prime Minister informed the House that he had that morning given notice to the German Government that if they did not comply within a week with the demands he was then making, we should join with the French in occupying the Ruhr. [Interruption.] Anyone can look at the OFFICIAL REPORT. [HON. MEMBERS: "Bluff !"] I will not do the right hon. Gentleman the injustice of saying it was really bluff. [HON. MEMBERS: "He said so!"] If it was bluff, it certainly does
not exonerate him or the House or the country in any way from acting upon it, and it remains equally true that it does not lie with us to take up that superior attitude.
The right hon. Gentleman put a very serious question, which he drove home by a quotation from an answer I gave to a question, which to a certain extent no doubt lies behind the more immediate difficulties with which we are confronted. He says, does this Government think the French are acting in violation of the Treaty of Versailles in occupying the Ruhr? I do not see why I should answer that question. I do not see why the Government should answer it. The right hon. Gentleman quoted my answer and commented very caustically upon it, that I had said there was no object in asking our Law Officers whether or not a violation of the Treaty had taken place, because, of course, their answer would be based upon English methods of interpretation. He went on to show that am, was ignoring the common functions of the Attorney-General with regard to any public matters. I quite recognise that. All I meant by that was that except in relation to some few Clauses there is no interpretation Clause in the Treaty itself and that if our Law Officers gave an opinion it could not bind anyone. It would only be an expression of their opinion and advice for our Government from our point of view as to the legal significance of what the French had done. I submit that this is a very similar case to that which he was speaking of last night, when we were also dealing with a matter which had both its legal and political aspects. He pointed out that although the legal point could net be ignored it really was much more a matter of expediency than of law. So I submit to him here. There may be many different opinions as to whether or not anything the French have done could be justified within the four corners of the Treaty, but what good purpose does he think would be served by our expressing, publicly it might be, through the mouth of our Law Officers that our Allies had violated the Treaty, if that, was the opinion? Does he think any good purpose would be served by doing that?

Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Gentleman the other day told us His Majesty's Government were advised that there had been a breach of the Agreement in respect of the
Rhineland Convention. That was after a consultation with the Law Officers. The difficulty is that they are consulted in one case and not in another. It is a grave question whether or not a Treaty to which different countries are parties is being strictly observed, and there is such a thing as an international High Court, which exists for the express purpose of seeing that Treaties are properly applied and properly interpreted.

Mr. McNEILL: I am taking up rather more time than I had intended, and I will not labour that. I will merely point out that, at all events, the French and the Italian and the Belgian Governments presumably think and hold, and their jurists have presumably advised, that they are acting within the Treaty.

Sir J. SIMON: Then they have consulted their jurists and you have not.

Mr. McNEILL: I am not making the assertion that they have, I am only presuming. But I do not think it is really a matter of such very great importance as the right hon. Gentleman made out. I want to deal with another matter, because I quite agree that the position is changing from time to time, and so far from getting more serious, in some ways it is getting less serious, and from that point of view, of course, we ought to congratulate ourselves. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out, as one of the illegal things that are done, that the Rhineland Commission has asserted its authority over the territory between the bridge heads, which has been taken into new occupation. They did so, of course, but they are not doing so now, and that, I think, is entirely in response to a representation that we made to them, and they have now made other arrangements that the Rhineland Commission as such exercises no authority whatever.
The right hon. Gentleman bases his justification for raising the fifth debate that we have had recently on this subject on three new facts, as he said. The first was that the British Army is now surrounded and has no contact with unoccupied Germany. That is not so. [An HON. MEMBER "Since when?"1 It is not so now. It is all very well to laugh, but the situation is changing and it is no use hon. Members saying to the Government: "You ought to be making representations
to the French Government in order to get improvements made when they jeer if I am in a position to say, "We have made representations and those improvements are taking place." But I want to go on to what is a much more important matter and that is the effect upon British trade, because that is a matter which very vitally concerns us. Here again I am in this difficulty, that we have been making representations from time to time. Hon. Members have been putting down questions and bringing individual cases, as a right hon. Gentleman did about the vessel which was stopped in the river, to the War Office and the Board of Trade and we have day by day been making representations with a view to getting a more tolerable state of affairs. Throughout I am bound to say the French and Belgian authorities have shown themselves extremely anxious, quite recognising that a state of affairs has unavoidably been brought about which we regard as intolerable, to remove those difficulties. In view of what has been done, I think I ought to say exactly what the present position is with regard to trade. First of all I take goods consigned to places within the occupied territory. I must here draw a distinction between goods entering the occupied territory over the Western Frontier or by the Rhine and those which enter the occupied territory through unoccupied Germany. The first category, those consigned to places within the occupied territory by way of the Western Frontier or the Rhine, are subject to a duty at the rate of 10 per cent. ad valorem. That 10 per cent. has been substituted for the German Customs tariff which was in existence before. The German Customs tariff was a very complicated and varying tariff, and the 10 per cent. ad valorem duty now has been a simplification and substitution for that tariff. Goods which were admitted free of duty under the German tariff are still exempt from duty. That is the state of affairs at present as regards the old occupied territory. We are pressing as strongly as we can to have the same arrangement made in the Ruhr itself, and we have every expectation that it will be made, but I am not able to say at present that it has been concluded.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Who gets that 10 per cent.?

Mr. McNEILL: I have not time to be drawn off. Secondly, goods consigned from a country other than Germany to the occupied territory through Germany outside the occupation are exempt from import duty on their entry into the occupied territory on production of a certificate of origin and a receipt for payment of Customs duty issued by the German authorities at Ems and Essen. That means that, having paid the ordinary duty to the German authorities, they have not to pay a second time, and I think the right hon. Gentleman, in the account he gave of the present situation, did not appreciate that fact and, perhaps, was not aware that that arrangement had been made.
May I say a word about the licensing of imports. The list of goods which come in free from import duties remains in operation. There are -certain other goods which are not allowed to be imported into occupied territory unless they are covered by an import licence issued at Ems or Essen. Much more important, apparently, is exportation to countries other than Germany, because that is what mainly concerns us. The list of goods which under the previous régime were exempt from export licence requirements remains in force but other goods may not be exported from the occupied territories to countries other than Germany except under licence issued by the officer at Ems or Essen. Goods consigned from the occupied territory to a country other than Germany by way of non-occupied Germany require an export licence from Essen or Ems but are exempt from export duty in the occupied territory except in certain cases. Then export to unoccupied Germany of goods from both the old and the new occupied territory is forbidden without special permit. The export of certain products to unoccupied Germany is absolutely forbidden, permit or no permit, and only in exceptional cases will permits be granted. For other products permits can be obtained, but I do not think that is a matter which mainly concerns ourselves. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with goods in transit and there I think he was not fully informed of the present position. Goods consigned from countries other than Germany through to the occupied territory to a country other
than Germany enjoy the usual transit facilities. In other words, they are exempt from duty both on entry into and departure from the occupied territory if the transit regulations are complied with. Secondly, goods consigned from a country other than Germany through the occupied territory either by way of the western frontier or the Rhine to non-occupied Germany must pay import duty at the first office in the occupied territory competent to collect the duty as if the goods were consigned to the occupied territory, that is to say a duty of 10 per cent. ad valorem. There is no further duty. That is where the right hon. Gentleman made a mistake. He said there was a further duty on leaving. That is not so.

8.0 P.M.

Sir J. SIMON: I realise the difficulty, but this is the important point. The hon. Gentleman is dealing with goods which are passing into occupied territory and passing from there into unoccupied Germany. In addition to the 10 per cent. duty imposed upon them at their first entry, and collected by the French Custom officials, is not there also a duty imposed by Germany when the goods enter unoccupied Germany?

Mr. McNEILL: No, I do not think so. They pay import duty at the Customs office in the occupied territory, and there is no further duty.

Sir J. SIMON: There is no further duty paid to the French authorities, but surely there is a duty charged by Germany when the goods enter unoccupied territory?

Mr. McNEILL: When they pass into unoccupied Germany, I think that is so. There, is one other category to which I ought to refer. Goods consigned from unoccupied Germany in transit through the occupied territory to a country other than Germany pay an export duty of 10 per cent. ad valorem, and no licence is required. One hon. Gentleman asked me a special question about reparation dyes. I will tell him the position in regard to reparation dyes. In the case of dyes coming from occupied territory, and delivered to Britain as reparations, export licences are issued without charge, so that, so far as these particular goods are concerned, I do not think any special difficulty arises.
Two hon. Members asked me about the railway position—the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and some other hon. Member. The position as regards railways is this—that, speaking generally, railways in the occupied territory are now managed by the French and Belgian authorities, but in response to our representations, they have made no change of that sort—they do not exercise any management in the British zone, and the railways in the British zone continue to be worked by a German personnel and under their management. So far as the use of the railways for military purposes through our zone is concerned, an arrangement has been come to and accepted by the German Government that the French shall have for military use in our zone a number of trains equal to the average of that which they enjoyed before the occupation of the Ruhr, and that arrangement apparently gives satisfaction—at all events, it has been accepted by all the parties concerned, and I hope it will tend to avoid friction and difficulties as time goes on.

Mr. THOMAS: That was the arrangement prior to the last week's conference. What is the change?

Mr. McNEILL: So far as I am aware—I am speaking from memory—I do not think there has been any change in the arrangement. I must make this comment upon the Debate as a whole. We have had a great deal of denunciation of the French action and of the things that they have done being so very illegal, so very immoral, so disastrous to our trade, and so forth, but whenever any hon. or right hon. Gentleman has at the end of his speech come to make a practical suggestion—I have listened very anxiously for it and I have found very little practical suggestion as to what this Government can practically do in the situation in which they have been placed. Great stress has been laid upon Article 11 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher) spoke about our policy of continued inertia, and the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate asked how long this passivity is to remain. But how are we to break into the inertia complained of? The one and only suggestion is that the League of Nations should be asked to intervene.
Great stress was laid by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the English Universities on Article 11. He pointed out that it was the friendly right of each member of the League to move the Council of the League in any matter of this sort. Of course it is. Everybody admits it is the friendly right of any member of the League to move that its machinery be applied to cases of this sort, but surely the question we have to decide is not whether the right exists or not under the clause of the Covenant, but whether, under all the circumstances of the case at this moment, it would be wise for this Government to make use of that particular right in the particular way suggested. I venture very respectfully to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the League of Nations, with all the hopes of the world that it carries with it, is not yet an institution deeply rooted in the minds of the people of the world, and I can perfectly see circumstances under which, if you are to attempt to put into operation the machinery of the League of Nations, the first effect would be that you would smash the League. And, having regard to what we know of the temper at the present moment of France, in perhaps a lesser degree of Italy and of Belgium, I can quite understand that if we were to try to force the pace by bringing in the League of Nations as a roundabout form of intervention, it would not have any effect whatever so far as the particular problem with which we are dealing is concerned, but that its repercussion on the League of Nations would have very deplorable consequences I have the strongest ground for believing. I do not think we can go in for anything of that sort. I would like to inform hon. Members that only three days ago M. Poincaré, addressing the Foreign Affairs Commission of the Chamber in France, stated that the French Government would accept no offer of mediation and would enter into no indirect negotiations with the German Government, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the English Universities and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley suggested that if not the League of Nations there might be some other form of international Conference—and both of them naturally and rightly laid great stress on the importance of bringing America into
It—we have not been encouraged by the result of certain endeavours that have been made since this problem became acute to interest the American Government, and to see if we could not enlist their support and assistance in solving this problem. The right hon. Gentleman knows himself that the intimations which have come from America that if their assistance in the matter would be welcome they would be able and willing to offer it—that that sort of offer coming from America has met with no response whatever, and therefore it remains to me for the present moment to say first of all that hope through moving the League of Nations to take a part—as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the English Universities urged us to-day, of course speaking with very exceptional authority—would be an absolutely useless step and that, for the reasons I have given, it might almost be dangerous to an institution from which we hope for a good deal in the future.

Mr. FISHER: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has considered taking up the question of security along with the question of reparations, and whether the French Government would be unwilling to consider the question of reparations in that way? There was a suggestion that the two questions should be remitted to the League of Nations.

Mr. McNEILL: My tether is nearly at an end, and that question would rather draw me into a new line. I must conclude by saying that while the Government fully recognise the terrible seriousness of the position; while they recognise that the difficulties in some respects have certainly increased, and that they must be prepared to deal with them from time to time, they are still as anxious as ever to maintain, if possible, the friendship which has subsisted between us and France. We want, if possible, to avoid a final break, and we do not see any hope at the present moment either through the machinery of the League or by any special international Conference called for the purpose of striking out. a new policy which would meet the criticism which has been made to-night, and we remain therefore exactly in the same position to-day as when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke on this subject, after all, only a few days ago, and when he
reminded the House that you cannot have a now policy every time you have a new Debate.

Mr. PRINGLE: I think something should be said in the very short time remaining to us in regard to the unsatisfactory speech to which we have listened. It is a clear illustration of the practice which is now becoming common among Ministers in this House not to reply to a case after the case is opened. They take no opportunity of exploring the large question that has been opened. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has had to deal with the interruptions of which he has complained, but as a result of his speech the House of Commons at the present moment has had really no light

thrown on the situation, the terrible seriousness of which he has himself admitted, and I hope we shall have an assurance from the Prime Minister that on any further Debate on this question, when a case is opened on the Front. Bench, either on behalf of the Official Opposition or the Liberal Opposition, there will be an immediate reply from the Government, and that hon. Members with the material in their hands will be in a position to deal with it in an intelligent way.

Question put, "That '£126,600,000 ' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 201.

Division No. 35.]
AYES.
[8.15 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Colvin, Brig. General Richard Beale
Hewett, Sir J. P.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Cope, Major William
Hiley, Sir Ernest


Apsley, Lord
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff. South)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Cralk. Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Hood, Sir Joseph


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Hopkins, John W. W.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood.
Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Houfton, John Plowright


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)


Barnston, Major Harry
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Becker, Harry
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hudson, Capt. A.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hughes, Collingwood


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Hume, G. H.


Betterton, Henry B.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Blundell, F. N.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hurd, Percy A.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Ellis, R. G.
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)


Brass, Captain W.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F, S.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Jephcott, A. R.


Brown, Major D- C. (Hexham)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Kelrey, Major Fred (Rotherham)


Bruford, R.
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel


Bruton, Sir James
Ford, Patrick Johnston
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Foreman, Sir Henry
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Forestier-Walker, L.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Burney, Cam. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Butcher, Sir John George
Frece, Sir Waiter de
Lorlmer, H, D.


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lort-Williams, J.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Furness, G. J.
Lougher, L.


Button, H. S.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Cadogan, Major Edward
Ganzonl, Sir John
Lumley, L. R.


Camplon, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Cautley, Henry Strother
Goff, Sir R. Park
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Cayzer, sir C. (Chester, City)
Gould, James C.
Margesson, H. D. R.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Greaves-Lord, Walter
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Mercer, Colonel H.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Milne, J, S. Wardlaw


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Llv'p'I.W.D'by)
Molloy, Major L. G. S.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Halstead, Major D.
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Clarry, Reginald George
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.


Clayton, G. C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)


Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C (Kent)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Harvey, Major S. E.
Murchison, C. K.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Nall, Major Joseph


Cohen, Major J. Brunet
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Nesbitt, Robert C.


Collox, Major Wm. Phillips
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Nield, Sir Herbert
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Sutcliffe, T.


Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Rogerson, Capt, J. E.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Russell, William (Bolton)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Paget, T. G.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Tubbs, S. W.


Pease, William Edwin
Samuel, Samuel (W'dswsrth, Putney)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Wallace, Captain E.


Penny, Frederick George
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Sandon, Lord
Watts, Dr. T, (Man., Withington)


Peto, Basil E.
Shipwright, Captain D,
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Pielou, D. P.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Pollock. Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Simpson-Hlnchliffe, W. A.
Whitla, Sir William


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Singleton, J. E.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Privett, F. J.
Skelton, A. N.
Winterton, Earl


Rae, Sir Henry N.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Wise, Frederick


Raine, W.
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)
Wolmer, Viscount


Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Sparkes, H. W.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Stanley, Lord
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Remer, J. R.
Steel, Major S. Strang
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Rentoul, G. S.
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)



Reynolds, W. G. W.
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs


NOES.


Adams, D.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Leach, W.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Foot, Isaac
Lee, F.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)


Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
Gilbert, James Daniel
Lewis, Thomas A.


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Gosling, Harry
Linfield, F. C.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Lowth, T.


Ammon, Charles George
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Lunn, William


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Gray, Frank (Oxford)
McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.


Attlee, C. R.
Greenall, T.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertiliery)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
M'Entee, V. L.


Barnes, A.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McLaren, Andrew


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Groves, T.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Batey, Joseph
Guest, Hon. C. H. (Bristol, N.)
March, S.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Millar, J. D.


Benwick, A.
Harbord, Arthur
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Bowdler, W. A.
Hardie. George D.
Morel, E. D.


Broad. F. A.
Harney, E. A.
Morris, Harold


Bromfield, William
Harris, Percy A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Mosley, Oswald


Buckie, J.
Hayday, Arthur
Muir, John W.


Burgess, S.
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Murnin, H.


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Hemmerde, E. G.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Nichol, Robert


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
O'Grady, Captain James


Cairns, John
Herriotts, J.
Oliver, George Harold


Cape, Thomas
Hill, A.
Paling, W.


Chapple, W. A.
Hillary, A E.
Parker, H. (Hanley)


Charleton, H. C.
Hinds, John
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hirst, G. H.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Cowan. D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Philipson, H. H.


Darbishire, C. W.
Hogge, James Myles
Ponsonby, Arthur


Davies, J. C, (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Potts, John S.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Irving, Dan
Price, E. G.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Pringle, W. M. R.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Richards, R.


Duffy, T. Gavan
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Duncan, C.
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Riley, Ben


Ede, James Chuter
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ritson, J.


Edge, Captain Sir William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Royce, William Stapleton.


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Kirkwood, D.
Saklatvala, S.


Fairbairn, R. R.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Scrymgeour, E.


Falconer, J.
Lansbury, George
Sexton, James


Fildes, Henry
Lawson, John James
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)




Shaw. Thomas (Preston)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Shinwell, Emanuel
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Whiteley, W.


Short. Alfred (Wednesbury)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Wignall, James


Simon, Rt. Han. Sir John
Thornton, M.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Simpson, J. Hope
Tout, W. J.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Sinclair, Sir A.
Trevelyan, C. P.
Williams, T (York, Don Valley)


Sitch, Charles K.
Wallhead, Richard C.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Snowden, Philip
Warne, G. H.
Wintringham, Margaret


Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wright, W.


Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)
Webb, Sidney
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Stephen, Campbell
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Weir, L. M.



Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Westwood, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sullivan, J.
Wheatley, J.
Mr. Phillips and Sir A. Marshall.


Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

WARRINGTON CORPORATION WATER BILL (by Order).

Order for Second 'Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. J. C. DAVIES: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
I feel sure that hon. Members will grant me the indulgence that it extends customarily to those who address the House for the first time. This is the second Bill promoted within the last 15 years to obtain an additional water supply from the area of the constituency which I have the honour to represent. In 1907 the Birkenhead Corporation secured a Bill to construct reservoirs in the Hiraethog hills. That Bill encountered but little opposition, for the reason that it did not contemplate the subversion of valuable agricultural land nor the eviction of a large number of people from their farms and homes. This Bill, on the other hand, has aroused the most vigorous opposition from the public Authorities in the county and from many public Authorities outside the county. Strongly worded resolutions have been sent in against the Bill by the National Farmers' Union, by commercial institutes, by schools and colleges, by representative Bodies of all shades of political and religious opinion from all parts of the Principality, from many parts of England; and even from America and the. Colonies. The question suggests itself, what is the reason for the great difference in the reception given to the two Bills? The
reason is simple. The Birkenhead Corporation Bill paid due regard to the sentiments and material interests of the inhabitants and was regarded as a necessary Bill. This Bill, on the other hand, pays no such regard either to the sentiments or the material interests of the inhabitants, and is generally, I might say universally, regarded as much more of a commercial scheme than as a bonâ-fide attempt to supply the needs of the people of Warrington.
The difference in the reception given to the two Bills will, I hope, help the House to realise that the opposition to the Bill is not based on any narrow, selfish and parochial grounds, but that it is based on sound, broad and sane principles of public policy. What does the Bill propose? The proposals involve the construction in the Ceiriog Valley of two large reservoirs and the carrying out of other incidental works. The area, for the compulsory acquisition of which powers are sought, or which will be directly affected by the scheme— I would emphasise that phrase—amounts to about 13,000 acres. It includes three villages, one church, five chapels, two burial grounds, two public elementary schools, two post offices, two inns, six shops, and 82 other dwelling houses, of which 45 are farmhouses with farm buildings. The population of the area which it is proposed to submerge is about 400, most of these being farmers and workers on the land. Many of the farmers belong to families which have occupied their present holdings for generations. The land of the valley is principally pasturage, but includes some hundreds of acres of corn land, and usually carries about 1,000 cattle, 17,000 sheep, and other farm stock. Butter and cheese are produced to an annual value of about £5,000. The valley is specially noted for sheep, which, apart from their food value, produce some 15 tons of wool every year.
I will leave it to subsequent speakers to deal with the effect of impounding the water of the Ceiriog the carrying away of the greater part of it will have on the industries in the valley, actual and potential. To put the matter shortly, there is little doubt that the scheme must ultimately involve the denuding of the valley of practically every human habitation throughout at least five miles of its length. A happy, industrious and contented population of some 400 souls must ultimately either be evicted or driven away. In these days of shortage of houses and shortage of small holdings, the question must suggest itself to every fair-minded man, what is to become of these poor peasant farmers? I can assure the House that the question is being asked with great anxiety in many houses in the valley now. The stereotyped answer to the question is that they will be compensated. I would make two observations upon that reply. The first is this: These peasant farmers are adepts at the somewhat peculiar kind of farming practised therein. I am told on reliable authority that they would find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, especially the older portion of them, to adapt themselves to new conditions and a new system of land cultivation.
If this Bill survives the Debate to-night I hope that the Warrington Corporation will be compelled to provide for these poor Welsh farmers not merely the ordinary compensation, but to provide for them alternative similar lands and buildings, and that before they begin to dispossess the farmers of the land they now occupy. My second observation is this: There cannot possibly be any monetary compensation for the loss of hearth and home. In the case of people who live in remote and inaccessible districts, the attachment to their homes is extraordinarily strong, and they deserve all the sympathy and support that we can give them. Subsequent speakers will, no doubt, tell the House that the valley is one of the beauty spots of Wales. It is exceedingly rich in historical and literary associations. It is worthy of note that a body like the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty is amongst the petitioners against the Bill. I do not intend to labour that point, but I would say that the valley
is linked with some of the most romantic and stirring incidents in Welsh history. Welshmen cannot help admiring the solicitous care with which places of historic interest are watched over by Englishmen. Many hon. Members no doubt noticed some weeks ago in the "Manchester Guardian" correspondence in reference to the proposed construction of a motor road over a portion of the Lakeland. The very suggestion aroused keen opposition—[HON. MEMBERS: "And support!"]—much more opposition than support, I understand. My point is that this threatened valley signifies quite as much to the patriotic and cultured Welshman as Grasmere or Rydalmount signifies to the patriotic and cultured Englishman. All we ask of the House—and I think it is a very modest and reasonable request—is that we Welshmen should be allowed to show the same respect and reverence for the memories and homes of great Welsh poets and writers as Englishmen very properly show to places associated with great English poets and writers. In order to shorten my remarks and concentrate on the vital issues, let me state the main grounds of the opposition to the Bill, at all events the main grounds taken by the constituency which I represent. They are three. First, that the Bill is unnecessary, and that Warrington can secure all the additional water supply it needs from other sources without the loss and devastation contemplated by the Bill. Second, that the water which Warrington proposes to abstract is urgently required for drinking and industrial purposes in the populous and rapidly developing eastern portion of the county situate close to the growing town of Wrexham. Third, that it is most inequitable that the Bill should be sanctioned by Parliament before what is a great. national question has been settled, namely, the question of the fairest method of appropriating and utilising in the interests of the country as a whole the few remaining supply areas in the country. Let me refer briefly to each of these points, leaving subsequent speakers to elaborate them. The first point is that the Bill is unnecessary and that Warrington could obtain its supply without involving all this loss and devastation. According to a Board of Trade return of July. 1914, the quantity supplied from the Warrington Corporation
sources was 2,543,175 gallons per day, and an additional amount could, if necessary, be obtained from other sources amounting to 1,239,000 gallons. It is not known what amount of such additional supply has been obtained by the Corporation, but it is assumed such sources cannot be exhausted because no application has been made to Liverpool, for any portion of the supply of 2,000,000 gallons per day to which Warrington has been entitled since 1880 Let me emphasise that point. Warrington has been entitled by Statute, to a supply not exceeding 2,000,000 gallons per day from Liverpool since 1880 and Warrington has not thought fit to exercise that right. And I may add, that the offer to Warrington was renewed by Liverpool in 1919. According to Councillor Gough of Warrington that town can secure a supply from its present sources (including the 2,000,000 gallons from Liverpool) of 11,000,000 gallons per day. I do not commit myself to these figures but I am quoting one of the Warrington councillors. According to him it is quite unnecessary to get water from Wales at a cost of from £2,000,000 to £3,000,000. Before leaving the question of Liverpool let me quote to he House some words reported to have been used by the Lord Mayor of Liverpool at a meeting held in March last:
Liverpool could supply Warrington with much more water than she wanted. There was no need for Warrington to go to the Ceiriog Valley at all.
It is important in this connection that the House should know that Liverpool is now laying down a third pipe line to Lake Vyrnwy, so that the water supply of Liverpool will be very substantially increased in the near future. I am informed, butt merely throw this out on the strength of what appears to be reliable authority, that there is yet another alternative source of supply to Warrington. It is alleged that the new Manchester Corporation scheme will be completed by 1930 and it will be perfectly possible for Warrington to get all the supply required from Manchester. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of that statement, but I have received the information from what appears to be a thoroughly reliable authority. According to a Board of Trade Return of 1914, the potential quantity of water available from Warrington Corporation sources was 3,872,072
gallons per day. According to Councillor Gough the average consumption per day of Warrington is 2,800,000 gallons per day. Let me now point out the amount of water which could be obtained from the valley and how it is vastly in excess of the requirements of Warrington. Over 12,000,000 gallons a day (after allowance is made for the 4,000,000 gallons of compensation water which is allowed by the Bill) will be obtainable from the Hendre reservoir, one of the two reservoirs which it is proposed to construct. It would seem, therefore, that the comparatively small amount of water required by Warrington does not justify the corporation in embarking on the great expense involved in the present scheme, especially when such requirements can be met from other sources, nor does Warrington need the enormous amount of water obtainable from the Ceiriog Valley. What then is the motive for the scheme? What is the driving power behind the Bill? There are hints in the Warrington local papers, 'and let me quote one extract from the "Warrington Examiner" of 26th August, 1922:
A supply of pure surface water gathered in the Welsh mountains and placed at our disposal by means of pipes may be the means of directing further industries to Warrington. The town is closely interested in the dyeing industry and dyeing cannot be done satisfactorily with water hardened by lime, as is our Winwich water. There will also be a considerable saving in the soap bills of the town.
I submit that here we have the real motive for this Bill. Its object is really, not to supply the bodily needs of the population of Warrington, but to promote the interests of the borough and make a profit out of the sale of water to other communities. It would also appear that the inhabitants of Warrington are not very keen on the Bill, for a poll of the electors taken on the subject out of 25,000 electors on the roll only some 1,700, or roughly 7 per cent., took the trouble to record their votes. To talk about the danger of a water famine in Warrington appears to be nothing but a travesty of the actual facts, and there is good ground for believing that the whole scheme is nothing but an attempt, on the part of a few industrial magnates of Warrington, to be invested with power to hawk water to other communities and so to make a profit. What other motive could the Corporation of Warrington, with a population
of about 78,000, a rateable value of about £403,000, and a rate of 18s. in the £, have for embarking upon a scheme which is estimated to cost at least £2,000,000? And we well know from experience that the actual cost of most of these schemes is greatly in excess of the estimated cost.
But if Warrington does not need all this water, there is urgent need of it in the industrial and rapidly growing eastern portion of the county of Denbigh. Within a distance of some 10 miles of Wrexham, there is a population about twice the size of that of Warrington, and it has been growing at the rate of from 1,500 to 2,000 a year for the last 10 or 15 years. As an instance of the rapid rate of growth, I would point out that there will be opened this summer in the Wrexham area two new elementary schools, providing accommodation for at least 1,000 children. This is no replacement of old schools, but the opening of new schools. The district is already short of water, and additional supplies will have to be obtained. The only available source from which an adequate supply can be secured on an economic basis in this district is that now sought to be appropriated by the Warrington Corporation, and I may add in this connection that the abstraction of the water from the Ceiriog Valley could be effected by these local communities with but a fraction of the loss and the devastation contemplated by the Warrington Bill. Surely, it is unfair to allow a corporation like Warrington to attract new industries to its borough by means of water filched from localities which have a prior and far greater right to it. As everyone knows, this is a highly wasteful method of procedure, even from an engineering point of view, as water exported represents so much lost power. One may well ask how much hydro-electric power in small blocks could the waters of the Ceiriog Valley give to village industries in. East Denbighshire, which is suffering acutely, and badly needs all the small industries which as own natural resources are capable of feeding and. supporting.
Now I come to the third ground of opposition, and I will only just refer to it, because I understand the point will be elaborated by subsequent speakers. Reports of Royal Commissions and
of Departmental Committees on water supply from 1888 onwards have unanimously emphasised the importance of all available water supplies in the country being considered as a whole and distributed in pursuance of a comprehensive plan of allocation. In 1918 the Board of Trade set up a very important Committee to examine and report upon the water power resources of the United Kingdom and the extent to which they could be made available for industrial purposes. I do not propose to make more than one quotation—
The evidence given during the consideration of this Bill has brought very forcibly to the notice of the Committee the difficulties that surround the present position of the available water supply and the necessity for a survey of the whole water supply and the necessity for a survey of the whole water supply and water needs of the country, and for the adoption of measures for conserving the supplies and disposing of them to the best advantage.
The Report is studded with remarks of that character, but I do not propose to inflict any more quotations on the House. It would appear that it is entirely contrary to public policy to pass a contentious Bill of this kind, which proposes to absorb, for the benefit of a particular and distant town, one of the few unappropriated sources of water, until a general survey of the whole position has been made. I therefore very respectfully, but very earnestly, ask the House not to give a Second Reading to a Bill which has aroused the most vigorous opposition and the keenest resentment throughout a wide area, and which, in principle, has already been condemned in advance by every Royal Commission and by every Select Committee which has reported on the subject.

Mr. GOULD: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so, not on the ground of sentiment, but purely from the point of view which the hon. Member for Denbigh (Mr. J. Davies) last expressed, namely, that we should follow the recommendations which have been made for many years past in dealing with water supplies of the country before we proceed to appropriate one of the last few remaining sources of supply for the benefit of one particular town, which does not seem, on the face of it, to require anything like the quantity of water which it is seeking to appropriate. It is the custom of this
House on Bills of this kind to grant them a Second Reading in a perfunctory manner, leaving the matter to be dealt with in Committee. That has been the custom during the last 60 or 70 years, but, nevertheless, it is a very dangerous custom, and it has been condemned repeatedly by Royal Commission after Royal Commission and by Committee after Committee.
The position we are placed in to-day is that undoubtedly, unless we are exceedingly careful, we shall he faced in the near future with a shortage of water, not only for municipal purposes, but for power purposes. I am going to read a few quotations, like my hon. Friend who has just sat down, of people—authorities—who speak with no uncertain voice, and indeed with a great deal of authority on this particular question. If one goes back to the Royal Commission of 1866–9, one finds running through the Report of that Royal Commission a similar apprehension lest there should be some danger in the near future with regard to the monopolisation of water supplies. In the Report of the Joint Committee, which sat as late as 1910, this point is made perfectly clear:
Apprehension was expressed by several witnesses that the water supply of the country is not being utilised to the best, advantage, owing to the want of information on the subject of the general water supply, particularly the subsoil supply; the haphazard and arbitrary fashion in which the local sources of supply are sometimes wasted, sometimes withheld from use, and sometimes appropriated for the benefit of ether, and often distant, places without regard to the needs of the locality from which the water is taken or of the country as a whole.
That is the particular case against this Bill. We object, naturally, from the point of view that Warrington is coming in this way and taking a. supply which is far beyond her requirements. Beyond that, and long before that, is the national necessity of conserving the water supplies of the country. I go further. There was a Board of Trade Committee which was set up in 1918, and which issued a Report. Arising out of that appointment they asked for an addendum to the terms of reference which they were given, and they received this instruction:
To consider what steps shall he taken to ensure that the water resources of the country are properly conserved and fully and systematically utilised for all purposes.
That recommendation is as recent as 1918. We go further than that. Let me refer to some of the evidence which was submitted to the Committee presided over by Sir Harry Samuel. It said:
The evidence given during the consideration of this Bill has brought very forcibly to the notice of the Committee the difficulties that surround the present position of the available water supply and the necessity for a survey of the whole of the water supply and water needs of the country, and for the adoption of measures for conserving the supply and disposing of it to the best advantage, in accordance with the Report of the Joint Select Committee appointed to consider the Water Supplies. (Protection) Bill, 1910.
9.0 P.M.
There can be no question that this Bill, if it is passed, will be passed in direct opposition to the findings of that Committee which I have just quoted. It will be taken into consideration to the total neglect of the interests of the community, and it will be against the judgment of those of us who know the future resources, what are left, and in point of fact will be a contradiction in itself.
Warrington claims in its defence that it has a population of 103,000. As a matter of fact, so far as we can ascertain, it is 70,000. Warrington has a water supply, according to the latest Board of Trade figures, of 2½ million gallons per day. That can be increased, according to the Board of Trade information, from the present sources of supply to 3¾ million gallons per day. In addition to that, she has the right to take from Liverpool, and she has had that for four or five years, 2,000,000 gallons per day. She has not exercised that right. The total water demands and needs are less than 3½ million gallons per day, and yet she is going into an area, where she desires to go, to build a capacity for storage for at least from 4,000,000,000 to 5,000,000,000 gallons. With a total daily supply of 2,000,000 gallons, she is going to make it from 22,000,000 to 24,000,000 gallons. Is it possible, or conceivable, from the point of view of all the local needs of that town, that it is going to increase in size in the course of the next 15 years—that is, by the time the reservoir is completed—to expand from 4,000,000 gallons per day to 22,000,000 or 24,000,000 gallons per day? It is impossible! The intention is quite clear. Warrington is going to sell that water to those districts
adjacent to her, and recoup herself for her outlay.
There is another point of view. Is it public policy at the present time, and in the present State of this country, to grasp at and utilise an excuse that the building of this reservoir is going to find employment for a certain number of people, while at the Game time it involves the community in an enormous expenditure for which the borough has no justification whatsoever? If Warrington wanted to make good her case in favour of this Bill, she ought first of all to have proved conclusively that the 2,000,000 gallons per day which she has the right to take from Liverpool are not sufficient to cover her needs. Liverpool is perfectly willing to give her that water. Liverpool, by selling that water, makes a profit, and Liverpool is already laying down a three-pipe line from near Birmingham. Liverpool's supply is going to be increased. Why, in these circumstances, should Warrington not got what she requires from Liverpool?
What is the real point? The real point of the Bill is this: She says that the water she has to buy is hard water, that it is not suitable for certain of her industries. But if she takes the Liverpool water she is getting the same kind of water as under this Bill. Precisely, so that there is no excuse! She can have soft water for soap-making purposes and can get it by taking advantage of her contract with Liverpool, and not bring this Bill forward and as an excuse say that she desires to have soft water. There is no question whatsoever that Warrington has not made out her case. She cannot justify under any circumstances the expenditure of a huge sum of money for something which she does not require. This is not the time for waste. Nobody knows better than the Members of this House that we want to do all we possibly can to promote any undertaking which will provide productive employment, but this is wasteful employment at the present time because what Warrington is going upon is this: to provide water for a community of 70,000 persons she is going to take away water from a community of 135,000 persons. That is the position.
I know the House has a custom of passing these Bills. Members who are not present at the moment will troop in, as
they always do in cases like this, and say, "Oh, give the Bill a chance." But that is the most dangerous thing we can do. So long ago as 1887 the late Lord Wolverhampton, and other authorities, speaking in this House, pointed out the danger of adopting the policy which this Bill proposes. I submit that the proper point of view to take in this House is to refuse this Bill a Second Reading. The House should defer all water Bills and all water applications to a private Commission, which should undertake at once the whole matter of the investigation of the water supply and the rainfall supplies of the country, and then allocate, as best they can, in the interests of the nation, the supplies, whether it be in Wales or elsewhere, where the supply is likely to be of most benefit. Proceeding in this haphazard manner is going to result in a shortage of water in parts of the country where it is very much needed. It is certainly going to have that effect in the case of this Bill which will deprive a community and a district which is showing great potential possibilities commercially, and is developing its industries, of the power which it is using to-day. As far as the valley itself is concerned I am not going to refer to it from the sentimental point of view, but undoubtedly it is one of the great beauty spots and pleasant places in Welshmen's hearts. I am sure hon. Members would not like to see Bannockburn forgotten because it was a district where there was a tragic scene in bygone clays. We are prepared in Wales to fight for the conservation of a place which is dear to us, although if it is something which is for the benefit of the nation as a whole we are prepared to give it up.
We say that North Wales which has had generations of trial and sufferings from the lack of industries and is now developing and becoming a prosperous commercial community, should not be placed without due consideration in a position where its water power is going to he taken away. We do not want the community forced to move from the districts of North Wales to another district where they must resettle and restart. We say that the compensation which is going to be given to us by the reservoir will not be sufficient to keep pace with the development which is now taking place in that part of the country. At the present time we have not too much water in South Wales and we know what
it is to have a shortage of water there. It may be possible that as far as the. Rhondda Valley and Cardiff and other places are concerned that even now, although we have recently undertaken immense works, that we shall have to look for further water supplies.
Where are we going to turn to to provide a water supply for a community of 2,000,000 people. We shall not be able to go to North Wales, and are you going to penalise 2,000,000 people for the benefit of 70,000 people who have not proved their right or need for this water? I know that it is the custom of this House to give such Bills as this a Second Reading, but I submit that if this House should be foolish enough in view of the evidence laid before it for the last 60 years to follow the recommendations of responsible people and give this Bill a Second Reading, it should do so with this instruction, that Warrington shall he made in the first place to prove its need for this water; and, secondly, I think the Committee to consider this question should not be one simply to investigate this Bill, but should consist of Members from all parts of the House to go into the whole question of water supply. We are perfectly willing in Wales to give general support to any scheme for the benefit of the community, but we are not prepared, in face of the evidence laid before the House, to support a Measure which under present circumstances has been lacking totally and entirely in any groundwork showing any real necessity or any constructive point, and it is entirely, from our point of view, one which simply seeks to look ahead for a town which is going to make a commercial profit out of the monopolising of water required by a much more larger section of the country than Warrington itself.

Captain REID: I hope that hon. Members will be generous in action, if not in their thoughts, in so much as this is my first endeavour to address the House of Commons. I admit quite frankly that this is the most alarming thing which I have had to do since the War, and I admit that my alarm is intensified, because not only have I to champion the cause of the Warrington Water Bill, but I have also to debate it. I understand, however, that faint heart never won a fair Bill, consequently, I will proceed without any more delay. Before going into the main
questions which have been raised by the hon. Member for Denbigh (Mr. .Davies) and the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould), I should like to say a few words of explanation as to the motives of this Bill. The Borough of Warrington depends entirely for the bulk of its water supply upon wells. These wells are drying up, and the demand is increasing every year while the supply is decreasing. Warrington has now reached a point where her supply is only just equal to her demands. In fact, I think, that all sides are agreed that it is absolutely essential that Warrington should find another source of supply. With a crisis such as this impending, it has become absolutely necessary that the Corporation of Warrington should prospect at great expense all the neighbouring country, and they have been forced to admit that there is only one solution, and this solution is by building a reservoir in the Ceiriog Valley in Wales.
I may say that the Ceriog Valley is 50 miles from Warrington, and this scheme will cost between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000. Taking these facts into consideration, I would like to make one suggestion. Is it likely that any sane body of individuals would go so far to such expense if there was any practical alternative. It has been said that this is a matter of gain, but if hon. Members will follow me for one moment I would like to show that this is not the case. I admit that it has been suggested by the hon. Member for Denbigh and the hon. Member for Central Cardiff that Liverpool is capable of supplying Warrington with all her needs. I frankly admit that that is correct, but let me add that it is only correct up to a period and up to a point. Without troubling the House with all the figures that will come out in Committee, let me briefly explain what the position of Warrington is, as far as the supply of Liverpool is concerned. At present the supply is just equal to the demand. For many years the demand has been increasing and the supply has been decreasing. Consequently it has been needful for experts in water conditions to look ahead, and they calculate that about 10 years from now the deficiency will be a matter of 2,000,000 gallons a day. I have no doubt hon. Members will point out that that is the amount that Liverpool
can supply. I am quite willing to admit that, but I would like to add that Liverpool can supply the borough of Warrington with 2,000,000 gallons per day, but not one gallon more. Is there any reason to think that as soon as this 2,000,000 gallons from Liverpool are absorbed the demand and supply of Warrington will conveniently remain stationary? That is a consideration to which careful thought ought to be given.
I would like the House to imagine the predicament of Warrington and its surroundings in, say, 15 years' time from the present day. Liverpool has power to stop her supply should she not have sufficient water to supply her own people with 30 gallons per head per day. I suggest that the whole situation is not only extremely uncertain as far as Warrington and district is concerned, but it is absolutely impossible. I am afraid that so far I have been considering this subject from a purely selfish point of view. It is not only Warrington that requires the water, but many districts all round. These districts have no contract whatsoever with Liverpool or any other place, and I know for certain that one or two of them have applied to Liverpool for a supply and the answer has been that such a supply is absolutely out of the question. The Warrington scheme, if it came into effect, would be able to supply all these districts with as much water as they want, as long as they want it. May I give a little information to the House which has only recently reached me? St. Helens. Crewe, Runcorn and Ashton-under-Macclesfield, have all decided to come in with Warrington as partners on a Joint Water Board. This covers a population of 300,000 inhabitants. It gets rid of the suggestion that Warrington means to make money out of the district round about, for these people are coming in on the Joint Board as partners. Warrington would be only too pleased if Liverpool could solve her problem as far as the water supply is concerned, especially as it is going to cost her an enormous sum and it is not going to pay its way. I have spent a considerable period in making quite certain of the facts I have just laid before the House, and if in any way I have been incorrect in any one statement that incorrectness can certainly be brought out in Committee. To my mind
the Committee is the only place where such things can be decided. I have heard to-night from the hon. Member for Denbigh that the Lord Mayor of Liverpool, in a speech he delivered at a dinner given by the Liverpool Welsh Society a few clays ago is stated to have suggested that Liverpool can supply all the water that Warrington requires. Naturally the authorities of Warrington heard of this and their Town Clerk wrote to the Town Clerk of Liverpool for an explanation. I would like to read the reply which has been received:—
In reply to your letter of yesterday's date I have seen the Lord Mayor and he informs me that, speaking at the dinner of the Liverpool Welsh Society, he did so without having an opportunity of consulting the Water Committee of the Liverpool Corporation, and his remarks on that occasion were not in any sense made as indicating the policy of that Committee. The Liverpool Water Committee is in favour of your scheme as the best solution of the water requirements of Warrington and the neighbouring authorities. Although it is true that Liverpool Corporation are under an obligation to afford Warrington a daily quantity of water of 2,000,000 gallons the Corporation are not in a position to undertake any further obligations offering an additional supply either to Warrington or to any of the surrounding authorities. In fact, applications for additional quantities by neighbouring authorities already receiving supplies from the Corporation have been refused in recent years. It is understood that Warrington's future needs are greatly in excess of the daily quantity of 2,000,000 gallons which the Corporation are hound to afford. The Lord Mayor desires me to express his regret if his remarks at the above-mentioned dinner caused any misunderstanding as to the views of the Water Committee in relation to the Warrington Bill.
I think hon. Members will agree with me that that letter does not require any comment on my part. It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Denbigh and the hon. Member for Central Cardiff that even if the claims of Warrington are justified the question of water supply ought first to be referred to a National Water Committee so that the resources of Great Britain can be divided up equally. I have taken the trouble to look up previous debates on Water Bills, and I have found that in nearly every case this demand has always been raised by the Opposition. May I suggest that one of the obvious uses of the Ministry of Health is to perform the functions of a National Water Commission? But perhaps there are some hon. Members who would like to see yet another Government
Department set up. That may be so, or it may not. I should like to suggest that the Ministry at the moment is doing what a National Commission would be expected to do had one been set up. I will read a few extracts from a letter from the Ministry to the Welsh Housing Development Association, which I understand has been circulated to Welsh Members. I will only occupy the attention of the House for a very few moments:
The Ministry think it desirable to remove some misapprehension as to their position in regard to the reports which they make upon water bills. In reporting upon a Bill the Ministry do not merely take into account the needs of the particular area for the supply of which a local authority or a company are promoting the Bill, but those of all other areas likely to be affected. They consider not only whether the scheme is most advantageous to the particular district concerned, but also whether it is most advantageous, both as regards supply of water and economy for the community as a whole, that is, in connection with any scheme of importance, comprehensive consideration is given to the whole position so far as it affects the particular area from which the water is to ho taken.
That would be the main claim of a National Commission. Imagine for a moment that it was intended that a separate National Commission should be set up. Every hon. Member will agree that it would be years before such a Commission would be in working order, and decisions finally arrived at. It is absolutely essential, so far as Warrington is concerned, that this scheme, if it should go through, should start without any further delay, otherwise I suggest—in fact, I know—that there would be a very serious gap, in years to come, in the water supply which would disorganise beyond repair many of the industries of South Lancashire. It is no good shutting the gate after the pig has gone out.
I should like to say a few words about Wrexham, and the districts around, as they have been referred to by the hon. Members for Denbigh (Mr. J. C. Davies), and for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould). I understand that they say that Wrexham and the growing districts around require the water themselves. Do I understand by that that Wrexham is prepared to spend between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000 on building a reservoir in the Ceiriog Valley? Do I also understand that Wales would object to Warrington building a re
servoir there, but, on the other hand, she would not object to Wrexham building a reservoir? These are undoubtedly questions that ought to be referred to a Committee. I should like to say that Warrington would be able to supply the needs, not only of Wrexham, but also of the growing districts around, with such water as was wanted and as long as it was wanted. With regard to price, the Corporation of Warrington is quite agreeable that this should be decided by the Ministry of Health There are so many people who only want something when others seem likely to get it, and that is my opinion so far as this matter is concerned.
There is yet one other side to be considered, and that is the sentimental side, as debated by the hon. Member for Denbigh. I have read lately in several newspapers that it is the intention of wicked Warrington to desecrate one of the most lovely valleys in the whole of Wales. I have also read that she intends to desecrate the Stratford-on-Avon of Wales, so far as the historical aspect is concerned. These papers go on to say that she intends to submerge a matter of 13,600 acres, three villages, and 45 farms, to say nothing of two burial grounds. I also saw it stated that Warrington would submerge a very famous battlefield and the homes of two Welsh poets of great renown. Luckily, I do not always believe everything I read in the papers. As this matter was of such great importance, I thought I had better get first-hand knowledge. I have been down to the Valley of the Ceiriog. The first thing that struck me there was that a lake or reservoir would in no way upset the landscape of the Ceiriog Valley. It struck me that it would, in all probability, add to its beauty. I believe there are hon. Members who will agree with me that a reservoir need not be an unsightly thing at all. Even the extremities need not be unsightly.
Whilst I was down in the Ceiriog Valley, I was able to verify the fact that only 386 acres would be submerged, not 13,600; that one small village would be submerged, with only a few houses attached to it; and 12 farms, not 45. I see the hon. Member for Denbigh asked what has to become of all those inhabitants? I happen to know that provision is going to be made for housing all the inhabitants who may be ejected on
account of this reservoir, should it be erected. There is the question of these two burial grounds, about which we have heard. Neither of them are going to be submerged; they are not going to be touched at all. I admit that no more people will be allowed to be buried there, but, all the same, alternative burial grounds are going to be provided in these cases. What about the houses associated with the two famous poets? Neither of those houses will be touched at all; in fact, one of them is three-quarters of a mile distant from the reservoir. The battlefield, about which we have heard such a lot, is nine miles away from the reservoir.
I heard, and it certainly is my impression, that if this Bill were to fail, the people who would be most concerned and most upset would be the people of the Ceiriog Valley themselves. Even if that were not the case, is it right that a few isolated inhabitants, in an out-of-the-way village, should be considered before the vital needs of an enormous working-class community such as exists in Warrington and in the districts round—a matter of 300,000 people? That is a very grave consideration. I would also ask the House to consider what would be the result of a scarcity of water in Warrington and all the districts round. Hon. Members will agree that that would absolutely paralyse industry, and unemployment would be a hundred times worse than it is to-day. Recently, manufacturers who have considered settling down in Warrington have fought shy of the place because of our water outlook. Recently two chemical factories in Warrington had to leave because of the impurity of the water. The Warrington scheme would not only prevent future unemployment, but would help the present situation. Hon. Members must remember that this undertaking will cost between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000, and will take many years to construct. While it is being constructed, a young army of workmen will be required, and the majority of the work will be unskilled labour. This is also a most important point. I appeal to the renowned common sense of the House, and again ask, is it likely that Warrington and the districts around it—and, after all, there are many other districts now connected with the scheme—would go 50
miles to spend between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000 if they could go nearer and spend less? To my mind it would be an absolute disgrace to the House, and, what is more, I think it would be a smack in the face of all the workers of South Lancashire and parts of Cheshire, if this Bill were not allowed to reach the Committee stage and there stand or fall on its merits. In England, if an obvious murderer gets a fair trial, ought not the promoters of this very just Bill to be given a fair chance of making out their case? I sincerely hope that those hon. Members who have any doubts on the subject will, anyhow, give the Bill an opportunity of coining under the searching inquiry of a Committee.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This is a matter which arouses a good deal of feeling throughout the whole of Wales, and I should like to add a few observations to those which have been made by my hon. Friend in his very able speech. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down put his case, in a speech of great lucidity, with much fairness and force, and I congratulate him as a young Member of the House. He assumed that the Corporation of Warrington had the Same right to go upstairs as a murderer has to have his case presented and heard. But the murderer has no Second Reading, and, if he had a Second Reading, he would he very glad not to be sent upstairs. The mere fact that there is a Second Reading means that the House of Commons is called upon to decide on the general question whether the Bill ought to go upstairs or not. To go upstairs means an enormous expense to very heavily rated communities—not merely Warrington, but the heavily rated communities which my hon. Friends here represent. I know something about the expense of a Bill going upstairs. The lawyers and experts of all kinds are very useful people, of course, but they are rather expensive, and all that expense has to be added on. When there is a general question of very considerable magnitude, I think it ought to be decided by the House of Commons.
May I just put the general considerations as they appeal to me? The first is that the whole of the Welsh Members are absolutely solid in opposition to this Bill. There is not a Member for a single Welsh constituency who does not oppose it.
Every Welsh Member who can be here is here to oppose it, or, if he could have been here, he would have voted against it. Constituencies far removed from this particular area are very much roused by a sense of opposition to this effort on the part of the Corporation of Warrington to interfere with this place of intense historical interest. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down appealed to the sense of fairplay of the House. I ask, is there any other part of Great Britain where, if you had that fact established, any corporation would dare to put forward such a proposition? Suppose that the whole of the Scottish Members had been solid in opposition to an effort, let us say, on the part of the Corporation of Sunderland or Newcastle to tap the place where Robert Burns was born. I am not complaining that the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not know the poet whose name is a household word throughout the whole of Wales. His memory is a sacred memory. He has written some of the most exquisite lyrics in many languages, full of music and of song. Hon. Members may smile, but I can assure them that his name produces a thrill among hundreds of thousands of Welshmen, not merely in Wales, but wherever there are Welshmen who speak our tongue in any part, of the globe. His home is to be submerged. [HON. MEMBERS "No!"] I beg pardon. I think he was the most exquisite lyrical poet of his day. Supposing that the whole of the Scottish Members were in revolt against such a thing as that, does anyone imagine that the House of Commons would force upon Scotland something which roused a deep national sentiment, and was regarded as an outrage upon the feelings of the population? Why should it be done in Wales? That country has a loyal population, it has a patriotic population. In the last War, when it came to voluntary recruiting, we were first in voluntary recruiting, and this area was one of the very best.
That is one point that I want to put. The next is that it is a beautiful valley. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that it will be all the more beautiful for being submerged. There are many other places of which that is true, including Warrington. If Warrington were converted into a reservoir, does not he think it would improve the scenery? It is no use talking about that in regard to a place where
people have lived for thousands of years, and have lived the sort of life that we really want to retain in this country. It is disappearing. I think it is one of the tragedies of industrial life in England that people are dragged away from these beautiful valleys to live in towns like Warrington; and Warrington, not satisfied with that, wants to destroy these places in addition. I think it is one of the disasters of the last 50 or 60 years that these places have been, depopulated. They bred our best men; they are growing some of the leaders of our community; they are the nurseries from which are turned out the men who, through our colleges and other means, are leading our community; and valley after valley is disappearing. The Elland Valley has gone, the Vyrnwy Valley has gone, the valley which has been taken by Birkenhead, and now comes this exquisite valley which is to be taken by Warrington. One after another all our valleys are disappearing.
You are impoverishing the land by taking away these fine nurseries. Here it is not merely a beautiful valley—it is a rich and fertile valley, it is a progressive valley. It is a valley where experiments have been made recently in agriculture, which have enabled them to show the way to other parts of the country. It is to be wiped out, and why? Because they want alkali works—I should have thought that soap was quite enough—just in order to perfume the atmosphere with an additional chemical. That is the reason which is given in one of the extracts read by my hon. Friend. It is not as if they had no water there. If Warrington were to come to this House and say, "Here we have a population of 100,000; no water, or in a very short time we shall be without. any water. This is the only place where we can get it," it might be a different matter. But that is not true. It is 50 miles away. There is plenty of water in the County of Lancashire. It is a. very moist county. London, with its enormous population, is able to provide and to get its water supply within the ambit of its own markets. They have a much better case for coming down to either Wales or Cumberland or Derby, but they are able to manage without that; Warrington cannot. Why not? There are plenty of desolate moorlands in Lancashire, in Yorkshire, even in Cheshire, even in Wales. I know something
about the moorlands of Wales. There are plenty of desolate moorlands in Wales which could be the gathering ground for water for Warrington or any other town. Why should they pick out this exquisite little valley? [An HON. MEMBER: "Cheapness !"] Cheapness! I do not think it is. Cheapness cannot be reckoned that way. If you rob a country of its picturesque spots, it is just robbing it of the most beautiful picture that Nature has painted on its surface, and one of the most exquisite. You cannot weigh that in money.
Therefore, I entreat the House of Commons before they do this, before they outrage the sentiments of the whole of our population in Wales, a perfectly loyal population, that they should, at any rate, see whether it is not possible to reconsider the whole of this question of water supply. If Warrington had to find its supply within the next two or three years or four years I could understand it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Fifteen years !"] They have 15 years in front of them, and that is on the assumption that Warrington is going to grow at the present rate. They have 2,000,000 gallons per day, that they could draw from the Vyrnwy water supply of Liverpool. They have never applied for it. They ought to apply for it. Before they come and destroy this beautiful valley, they ought first of all to exercise every resource at their command. That gives time. Every Committee that has sat upon this question has recommended that the whole question of our water resources should be reconsidered. It is a vital matter. It is not merely a matter of water for supplying our towns. It is a question of utilising our water supply for industry.
If you want to develop new works, why develop them in Warrington? Why develop them in these great towns? We are the only country in the world which has not developed its power for the purposes of industries in districts where you can really grow children amidst surroundings which fit them for life, and which enable them to see something of the verdure of life. This is one of the problems that I hope will be dealt with in the immediate future. We are the only country that seems to be making no effort to solve this problem. We continue this hideous aggregation in grimy towns, instead of
considering the spreading of the population, and enabling them to earn their livelihood in the most beautiful country in the world. I do not mean merely Wales but England and Scotland, the whole of this land. Do not let us recklessly, in the course of two or three hours' debate, throw away this possibility of utilising all the resources in that area. Let Warrington apply first of all to Liverpool.
My suggestion to the Minister of Health is that he should not pursue the conventional course of saying: "Send this Bill to a Committee upstairs." This is not a question that a Committee upstairs can consider. That is a Committee of 40. They hear evidence, and they decide according to the ordinary rules there. The one problem that ought to be considered cannot be looked into by them at all. I, therefore, suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he cannot see his way to opposing the Second Reading of the Bill, that, at any rate, he will refer it to a Committee to consider the whole problem on a broader basis. From the points of view I have been presenting, a hybrid Committee, or even a joint Committee of the Lords and the Commons, with a very much wider reference. I do not want to stand in the way of Warrington getting a fair water supply, but I should have opposed the application, whatever town had made it, in spite of the strong appeal made by the hon. Member for Warrington.
Having regard to the very unanimous sentiment in the whole of Wales; for every party is opposing it; having regard to the fact that Committee after Committee has reported in favour of a broader consideration of the whole problem; having regard to the fact that Warrington has 15 years in which she can solve her problem and having regard to the fact that at present time rates are crushing in every town, and that there is no immediate necessity for adding to the rates of Warrington or any other town, and considering that by-and-by material may come down in cost, I do beg of my right hon. Friend to see that this Bill goes to a Committee with a wider reference, and to a larger and more important Committee than an ordinary Select Committee.

Sir HAROLD SMITH: Thirteen years ago I made my maiden speech in this House on behalf of a Warrington
Corporation Bill. History has been repeating itself in that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Warrington has made his maiden speech on a similar subject I am sure that the House will congratulate him on the ability with which he presented what, in my opinion, is a very strong case. Those of us who are
supporting the promoters of this Bill anticipated that the right hon. Member for
Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) would raise his eloquent and poetic voice in opposition to this Bill. We fully appreciate, indeed we respect, the opposition of the Welsh Members. While we respect I hope I may say without any offence that, although I think this agitation must necessarily appeal to the Welsh sentiments, the practical side has never been put to the Welsh people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, it has! "] I submit that it has not. We are the guardians of the commercial interests and welfare of the working classes of this country, and I maintain that the real practical side has never been put to the Welsh people. We have seen the sort of literature, very cleverly done, which has been distributed wholesale, and lately we have seen the agitation that has gone on, which appeals to that very natural Welsh sentiment, of which the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has always been a great living example ever since I have known anything about politics With great respect to my right hon. Friend, I think he was carried away by that Welsh sentiment, because he was intensely unpractical. Those who are supporting the promoters of the Bill are really supporting a matter which is of the most vital necessity to hundreds of thousands of the working classes in South-West Lancashire. I wish the right hon. Gentleman had been a little less poetical and a little more practical and had offered us some really practical suggestion as to how these industrial populations of South-West Lancashire are to look to their future, as to which there is the very greatest anxiety. It has been loosely suggested that we can go to the moorlands of Yorkshire. What moorlands in Yorkshire are there which are nearer than 50 miles? What moorlands in Lancashire are going to supply the populations of these industrial towns which have been mentioned? I appeal to hon. Members
on all sides for industrial constituencies in Lancashire and Yorkshire. Does anyone suggest that there is any practical proposal by which these industrial communities, of something like 300,000, can get a supply of ten million gallons a day? There is not a Member sitting for Lancashire or Yorkshire who will say that. If that is so I am entitled to say the right hon. Gentleman is a little impractical when he talks a little loosely about our going to the moorlands of Yorkshire and Lancashire.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I said Wales as well.

Sir H. SMITH: And Wales. We are going to Wales.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Not to the moorlands.

10.0 P.M.

Sir H. SMITH: I will not quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman as to whether we are going to the moorlands or to a beautiful valley. We are going to a part of Wales which is the nearest to the district to be served that we can possibly find. That is just over the borderland of Cheshire. The right hon. Gentleman further said we have 15 years in front of us. But this is not a recent idea. The scheme has been considered for years past by the best brains the corporation can find and moreover if the House sends the Bill upstairs and it receives eventually its Third Reading and becomes an Act of Parliament it will probably take 10 years before these works can be completed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of 15 years. I think he said it was possible that Warrington might last another 15 years. According to my information I should have thought that was rather an exaggeration and that 10 was probably the most they could hope to continue on. It is going to take something like 10 years to build these works. We who are interested are satisfied as to the absolute necessity, and further that there is no reasonable possibility of our finding an adequate supply in any neighbourhood nearer than this. The right hon. Gentleman says, why develop works in Warrington? Why not go to Wales? Warrington has been proud to boast of being a town of all trades for many centuries. That was not an accident. It was due to the fact that it has deep water and railway communication. The population is dependent for its existence on a water supply.
The right hon. Gentleman did rather what the Mover of the Amendment suggested. He said the promoters of the Bill were going to submerge one of the most beautiful, poetic, romantic and historical valleys in Wales. None of us doubts or questions either the beauty or the historical or romantic or poetical claims, but we are not going to do anything of the sort. We are not going to submerge this beautiful valley. When one hears of submerging a valley one imagines the whole place for miles round is going to disappear in a great swamp of water. Such a thing is not and never has been intended. So far as the advisers of the Warrington Corporation are able to say, when the first reservoir is built some 20 houses are to go—small and not very sanitary or creditable cottages—subject only to this most important condition, that those who are dis-housed are to be healthily and happily housed in new cottages. That obligation the Corporation have undertaken. Is it not highly desirable that the case for the opponents of the Bill should be presented accurately and that the House should not be led into a belief that we are going to drive people from a beautiful valley, homeless and houseless? They will be housed in the very valley in which they live and which they like, and only 20 are to go. When the second reservoir is built, there are seven houses which will be submerged. The Mover of the Amendment must surely know, and if he does not know he is not qualified to instruct the people of Wales as to the true proposals of the Bill, that only 386 acres are to be submerged. It is true that two chapels are to go. No one from choice or pleasure would undertake an operation which results in submerging houses and chapels, but they, again, will be rebuilt. I have not had au opportunity of visiting the valley, but I know North Wales a little. I have spent some 30 odd years of my life close to the very nightbourhood we are discussing. From what I know of these chapels in the little country districts in Wales they are not very well equipped for the religious work they carry on. [Interruption.] I am not saying that with slightest offence. I am putting it from this point of view, that they will be adequately rebuilt and replaced. It is not a very big affair financially and commercially. I know
the useful work they carry on. These chapels can and will be rebuilt and the corporation is under an obligation to rebuild them. That really is going to be the effect of this scheme, and I would like to add one thing only.
It has been suggested that some Joint Committee should be set up to consider the whole question of water supply. This sort of thing has been talked about since 1910, and Parliament has taken no steps whatsoever. It is not fair to the great industrial communities of the north that they should suffer by reason of the fact that Parliament may or may not have been negligent in making provision for the general allocation of water in the past. When these proposals were made there was no such thing as a Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Health, I understand, has communicated with every one of the local authorities who may be interested. They have made proposals and suggestions to them, and offered to act as a sort of fairy godmother to them all, to act as a sort of arbitrator to any of those interested in this scheme. We have had lists of the various bodies which have come in. The good offices of the Ministry of Health are at the disposal of any body of persons who are interested, and I am sure that in the sympathetic hands of my right Iron. Friend who now represents the Ministry that assistance will be at their disposal. It has been suggested by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment that Denbigh and Wrexham should be considered first. I think that proposal was a little destructive of the main criticism of the Bill by the Mover of the Amendment. The promoters of the scheme, I think, have offered to the Ministry of Health that the claims of these comparatively small communities—I am not saying they are unimportant, but I am counting heads—shall be met, and they have offered that the terms will be settled by the Ministry of Health. What fairer proposals could be made?
Then it is said of the promoters of this Bill, without the slightest justification, that this is a commercial deal. I really ask the hon. Member who made that statement what is his authority for such a reckless statement, because really there is no foundation in fact for it whatsoever. The terms upon which a local authority
may acquire water are not settled in the ordinary commercial way, by those who have something to sell and by imposing terms on those who must buy. The terms are settled by a Committee. This is an attempt to satisfy an urgent want in maintaining the trade and prosperity of a population running into 300,000 or 400,000. Let me add in conclusion that while sentiment is all very well, I shall be very much surprised if the Welsh sentiment on this question is so strong that when the annual holiday season comes, and when the millions of Lancashire and Yorkshire industrial workers pour into Wales to spend their money at all the seaside resorts there, I do not think the sentiment will be so strong as to interfere in the very slightest with the pleasure these people get every year of their lives in Wales. We spend vast sums in Wales. In my youth my wages were small and hard-earned, but I always spent them in North Wales. I do most urgently beg the House to follow the ordinary rule of allowing these matters, which are really Committee matters, to be dealt with upstairs by those who are well qualified to do so after hearing arguments for and against. This is not a matter of sentiment; it is a matter of the practical provision of a water supply to meet the urgent wants of a great industrial community which has nowhere else to go for its water.

Mr. R. RICHARDS: I would respectfully crave the indulgence of the House which is generally extended to a Member making his maiden effort. I am not presumptuous enough to enter the field against the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, but I hold in my hand a list of the houses in the locality which will be submerged by one of these reservoirs. There will be 26 farms and 16 cottages, and I would ask the hon. Member if there is no intention of destroying these houses, why in every case that I have personally investigated a notice has been given to the tenant? In addition to that, I have the misfortune or otherwise to live rather near another water works which belongs to the Liverpool Corporation, and I say without any hesitation that there is not a single Welshman who is allowed to live on the banks of this watershed who is not directly employed by the Liverpool Corporation. They have got rid of every single farmer on the watershed. We are
convinced that in the interests of the health of Warrington, once the waterworks are completed, not a single house will be allowed to stand in this particular locality.
I have considerable diffidence in addressing the House on what is to every Welshman a matter of intense personal conviction. Welshmen to-night, I know, all over the world are looking, with anxious hearts, to what is going to happen in the division which is about to take place. This is one of those occasions on which Wales speaks with a single voice. It is particularly hard on those occasions if we find that the unanimous opinion of Wales does not produce a responsive echo in the hearts of hon. Members. We feel that in this particular case the historic traditions of Wales have been flouted, her pride and susceptibilities have been wounded, and she stands before the House to-night an outraged, if not an enraged, nation. What is it all for? A community of 70,000 souls has suddenly developed an overweening desire for Welsh water after refusing for 43 years to taste it. During that period they have been entitled on an average to 30 gallons a day. They could have drunk Welsh water every day and bathed themselves in it and even drowned themselves in Welsh water I understand, according to the Board of Trade table, that the daily consumption of Warrington is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3,500,000 gallons. If these reservoirs are proceeded with I understand that Warrington will have 14,000,000 gallons a day which is roughly four times the normal consumption that is required.
I have the honour to represent a constituency which is situated at the very foot of the beautiful Ceiriog Valley, and which has a population of 135,000 souls—exactly twice the population of Warrington. Is it suggested in any serious way that it is either in the interests of economy or of justice that this water should pass by the doors of these people to Warrington 50 miles away? I have seen the maps of the proposed route, the pipe line, and, so far as I can see, the Wrexham district and Chester are not on the line which the pipes are going to traverse. There was a time long ago when the men of the Ceiriog Valley fought to repulse the Saxon invasion. The men in that valley still point with pride to the ancient, battlefield,
and I appeal to this House by saying that though I believe it is better to put forward our case here, because, as the hon. Member who spoke just now on the other side said, this House has always been noted for giving fair play from every point of view, and though we believe we have got a good case to argue, and are prepared to try to persuade the House, yet we would emphasise the fact that the spirit of the people of the Ceiriog Valley is as keen as it was 1,500 years ago.
The valley itself which is a very beautiful one, opens out upon the English plain. On the lower reaches of the valley you will find that English is spoken, but as you go up the valley gradually you will find nothing but Welsh. So much so, that nowadays, when people in this valley get letters from London or elsewhere in England, every letter has to be carefully translated for the inhabitants of the valley before they can understand them. These dalesmen to a man are opposed to the Bill. It has been suggested that some of the men in the Ceiriog Valley are in favour of this Bill. As far as I can understand, there are just two men in favour of the Bill and they do not happen to be Welshmen. They are publicans, as a matter of fact. References have been made to the historical and literary associations of this particular valley. Your own Henry II, of blessed memory or otherwise, came there, and he was sent "bootless home and weather-beaten back," having been defeated by a Prince of Wales with the euphonious name of Owen Gwyned. He lived in an old house, Dolwen, which I visited only last week. It is to be totally submerged if this scheme is carried out. No reference has been made in the Debate to this particularly interesting 14th or 15th century house. Welshmen are not ridiculous enough to expect that a lake in one part of the country is likely to surround a house nine miles away, but we do point out that this very historical relic is to be alsolutely destroyed if the proposal of the Bill is sanctioned. Later on in the history of Wales there came the episode which will always be very proudly connected with the name of Owen Glyndwr (the damned Glendower of Shakespeare). He also for a time occupied this particular house.
As hon. Members know, Wales is a land of poets and politicians, and this valley is particularly proud of the fact that it has supplied to Welsh literature two poets of outstanding merit. The first of them was an old farmer, Huw Morris, of Pontymeibion, who lived in the seventeenth century, and who, I am sorry to say, was a Tory of the deepest dye. His greatest delight was to attack Cromwell and the Puritans. Had he been alive and a Member of this House to-night, I have no doubt that he would have been found on the Government Benches. Let me add that, in spite of his robust Toryism, Wales is very proud of the old farmer poet. His home is to be threatened, although it is a quarter of a mile away from the dam. Notices have been given already to houses in the immediate neighbourhood of Pontymeibion. There is not a private house within a mile of the dam at Lake Vyrnwy. I would remind the House again of the poet to whom the ex-Prime Minister referred in his very eloquent speech. I do not think I need enlarge on that point of view. There is, however, another aspect of the question which is cutting very deep into Welsh thought now, and that is the attitude which is taken up in this country generally when it is suggested that some act of desecration should be committed in the Lake district. The Manchester Corporation, for example, have just got hold of what is known as the Haweswater Estate. In that case a single public-house is being threatened. I was very glad to find the other day that the Manchester Corporation were at very great pains to justify even that act of vandalism. I ask the House seriously, Are we to treat Wales differently from the Lake District? Is the Lake District to be regarded as a sacred land and Wales as a "No Man's Land" where any one may come in. These are very serious considerations for Wales. It is not only a question of uprooting a community, but if this Bill is passed you are really wounding the spirit of a nation which, as the ex-Prime Minister suggested, is one of the most peaceful nations and one of the most loyal nations that has ever been connected with this House of Commons. Let me say that a new Wales is being born in these days—a Wales devoted not to the arts of war as in the old days, but devoted sincerely to the arts of peace, to music and to
literature, and we worship our literary and national shrines, just as much as hon. Members worship those of Wordsworth and the other poets of the Lake District.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I think perhaps it would be convenient, if I were to intervene for a few moments at this stage in the Debate in order to indicate to the House what is the attitude of the Ministry of Health upon the Bill now before us. We have heard a good deal in the course of the Debate about the sentimental, historical and aesthetic considerations which are claimed to arise in connection with this Bill. The Ministry of Health have not concerned themselves with those aspects of the case. It is not their part to do so. These will be considered—they are hound to be considered—when this Bill goes upstairs to Committee, and due weight will be given to that national sentiment upon which stress has been laid, and which no one in this House would desire to belittle. But the Committee must consider how far that national sentiment is really outraged by a proposal of this kind, and they must distinguish between what is a genuine grievance and what is mere exaggeration. When the hon. Member who has just sat down, and whose maiden speech was so full of humour and wit, asked whether we were going to treat Wales differently from the Lake district, I think he forgot that in the particular instance which he gave, namely, the instance of Manchester and Haweswater, Manchester has got the power to raise the level of Haweswater to a height of something like 20 ft., if I remember aright. I am quite sure that Wales, which is so generous in lending us her poets and her politicians, will not deprive us of the advantages of water supply. The Ministry has had to consider altogether a different aspect. For the purpose of making a Report to the Committee upstairs, in accordance with the usual practice, we have made a very thorough investigation of the circumstances. We had first to ask ourselves the question which was put by the hon. Member for Denbigh (Mr. John C. Davies)—is it necessary to have this Bill at all? I think it has come out fairly clearly in the course of the Debate, that there is going to be in the course of the next few years, a very real and genuine need for some additional source of supply
of water for Warrington and the surrounding districts. I would point out to the House that although this is called the Warrington Water Bill, it is by no means only Warrington that is concerned. Anybody who takes the same view which we must take at the Ministry, and that is not a purely local view, but what may be called a national view, must think not only of Warrington, but of the great industrial population which is found in numerous towns in the neighbourhood.
What is the position? They have to depend in that neighbourhood for their water entirely upon wells, and they find that the level of the water in these wells is slowly sinking. So much water is being taken out of the geological formation that gradually the water supply is failing, and as it fails it. deteriorates in quality. Whilst it is all very well to make jokes about chemicals and soap, yet there is another aspect that we must consider, and that is that water of that character is not good drinking water for human beings, and especially for children. Therefore this becomes at once a public health question, and, as such, must necessarily engage the attention of my Department. The ex-Prime Minister said that Warrington ought to have gone to Liverpool before looking elsewhere for an additional source of supply. Is that really so? After all, the supply which can be obtained from Liverpool is not an unlimited one: it is a very limited one. Warrington cannot look forward only to the next few years; she must look longer than that, and if she finds that in order to get this limited supply from Liverpool she must expend, as she would have to expend, a very considerable sum of money in bringing it to her own boundaries, and if she finds she would have to pay a considerable annual sum for the privilege to Liverpool, and that, after all, in a. few years she would be exactly in the position where she is to-day and would again have to look round for a fresh source of supply, is it to be wondered at that Warrington has not approached Liverpool and asked her for the bare 2,000,000 gallons a day which is all Liverpool can supply? The Water Committee of Liverpool have deprecated any request from Warrington for this water, and they have plainly indicated that they need all they have got for their own needs.

Captain ERNEST EVANS: Is it not the case that when Liverpool got her
present powers she got them on condition that Warrington would be entitled to it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Undoubtedly Warrington is entitled to get it, but, as I have explained to the House, it would not be in the interests of Warrington to apply for it, because it would not solve her problem. At the Ministry we had to consider this question in all its aspects. We had to ask ourselves whether the water supplies of the country are going to be adequate and so allocated that there will be no waste. A point has been made by a number of speakers, including the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), that to my mind is a most serious point for this House to consider when they are considering the Second Reading of this Bill, and that is, whether the proposal in the Bill is doing something which would be inconsistent with a proper national water policy. I entirely agree. What we want to do in this country is to take a general survey of our water resources. They are not unlimited, but the demands are unlimited, or will be in the future, and therefore we have got to consider how we can best allocate the resources that we have got, so as not to involve ourselves in waste or in throwing away those resources which we so much need.
It has been remarked that various Committees have recommended the setting up of a Water Commission to make this survey. I doubt very much whether the setting up of another Commission would be a progressive step in self-government. We have now at the Ministry of Health a number of experts on this subject, and doing precisely the work that would have to be done by a Water Commission if set up. Why duplicate the work? Why set up another body responsible to nobody, appointed especially for the purpose, and doing again the work that we are doing at the Ministry of Health. They would have to begin at the beginning and learn all that we have been able to accumulate of knowledge upon the subject, and the whole question of the allocation of the water supply would have to be postponed. What we feel is that the water supply in the Ceiriog Valley ought not to be handed over to anybody who may not be able to make the best use of it. It is
quite clear that you cannot expect, at any rate for some time, to foresee whether or not Wrexham is going to take the whole supply available in the Ceiriog Valley. You have to bear in mind the needs of a great population like that of South-West Lancashire, of perhaps over half a million which does require a supply of that magnitude.

Captain E. EVANS: Is not the population of Wrexham larger than the population of the district for which the supporters of this Bill say this supply is needed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: You have got the district of Wrexham, which is a comparatively small one compared to the other. In these circumstances, the Ministry have come to the conclusion that a case has been made out for the examination of the proposal made by the proposers of this Bill. These others matters which have been brought up are matters which can properly be investigated by Committee upstairs, where it is possible to bring evidence, to have witnesses examined and cross-examined, and the full facts brought out as they cannot be brought out on the Floor of the House. The only thing we can do here is to watch the general interest of the whole district, and to send the Bill upstairs to the Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Will the Minister answer this question: How far the powers of the Committee upstairs will go to decide upon a national water policy? What about: the Commissions and Committees that Members of this House have spent many months on in considering the formation of a national water policy? Will the Committee upstairs deal with that vital policy in regard to our national water supply?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Clearly the Committee upstairs has not to formulate a water supply policy: that is being formulated in the Ministry of Health. In the light of that policy the Ministry of Health came to the conclusion that this Bill ought to go upstairs.

Mr. S. WALSH: I only want to say a very few words in support of the Measure before the House. I do it on the ground of the present need and urgency of a water supply, one that can be depended upon, in the great industrial areas to which the right hon. Gentleman has just alluded.
In this Bill many other authorities besides Warrington are included. There are the county boroughs of Wigan and Runcorn, the urban district council of Ashton-in-Makerfield, the great borough of St. Helens, and other places. In this area it is undeniable that the greatest possible difficulty and distress has been experienced for the last quarter of a century by this vast population. I should be the last person in the world to deny the force of the idealism of the Welsh people, and I believe they are actuated by the highest motives, but I feel sure that they would be the last people to submit great industrial populations—men, women., and children—to added misery and distress because of the lack of a good water supply. Everybody who knows South-west Lancashire knows perfectly well that it is not amply supplied with water. It has been said that Liverpool can meet this demand, but that city has certain obligations to fulfil already. We must remember that Liverpool is advancing rapidly in population, and is finding a strain in order to meet the obligations under all her Water Acts. Liverpool cannot supply the needs of the whole of South-west Lancashire, because in that part there is some of the largest industrial populations in the country.
Water is one of the essentials of life. Is it, therefore, not right that progressive municipalities should look ahead to make sure of the provision of that which is so necessary to life. I can assure the Welsh Members in this House and the people of Wales that the promoters are prepared to give the fullest measure of water within the water zone. [An HON. MEMBER "At a profit!"] Is there anybody under the impression that progressive municipalities exist for the purpose of making profit? They do not. They exist to meet the fundamental needs of the citizens and that is the purpose of this Bill. There is not a single municipality to which I have alluded which has not every year been subject to the greatest pressure on account of a shortage of their water supply.
It has been asked why we do not utilise the moorlands of Lancashire. May I point out that Liverpool utilised those moorlands half a century ago, and where is she to go for any further utilisation of moorlands? It has been said that the historic and romantic associations of
Wales are going to be submerged, but I have never yet seen that particular statement justified. I understand from the promoters of the Measure that the house of the poet will not be submerged, and there will be proper regard paid to all historical and romantic associations which we revere. In so far as the famous battlefield is concerned, well, I never thought that tender associations were coupled with such a place, but, at any rate, it will be about nine miles from the outer edge of the proposed reservoir. It is said the reservoirs will destroy the beauty of the scenery, but I am bound to say that, in my opinion, there are few things more beautiful than some of the reservoirs constructed by our municipalities, and I have seen a few of them. I have seen those constructed by the Manchester Corporation, and I defy anyone to depict a thing of greater beauty. We were told during the War that coal and chemicals would win it, yet the municipalities which produce them are now to be deprived of what they greatly need. I hope the House will realise that the pressing needs of Warrington are a full justification why this Bill should pass a Second Reading.

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: In rising to support the Amendment I should like to state briefly the objections of my own constituency to the Bill and also to make some general observations regarding the attitude of the Municipal Corporations Association. Hon. Members have, I believe, received a leaflet which is remarkable chiefly for what it. conceals rather than for what it states; any one reading it would suppose that the only objections which we entertain against this Bill are based on the ground that it seriously threatens the amenities of certain districts it would never be supposed that the water supply of neighbouring boroughs was seriously menaced and that the proposals of this Bill would do unutterable harm to existing interests, yet that is the ease. Again most Members have also received a document issued under the signature of a gentleman who is actually Parliamentary agent for the Bill. He recommends the Bill on its merits while in another part he assumes the rôle of Pooh-Bah and acting as a disinterested counsellor urges its adoption on high municipal grounds. This surely is treating the House with a small degree of
candour and a peculiar disregard for its intelligence.
Let me turn to the contention of the Warrington Corporation, which I can certainly congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Warrington (Captain Reid) on having made the most of. I should like to put before the House a few facts. This Bill takes away the very source of supply, on which boroughs like Chester, and Wrexham, and the developing Deeside, which is an industrial area in the making, will depend on it for their future water supply. The hon. and gallant Member speaks on behalf of the borough of Warrington, which has been shown, in the Debate, and in the circular issued by the Local Government Board, in 1914, as having existing water sources which can be made to yield a further million gallons a day if required. Furthermore, Warrington had the right to call on the Liverpool Corporation for water in addition up to 2,000,000 gallons, a right of which they have never seen fit to avail itself. If Warrington had chosen to avail itself of this further source of supply it could have more than doubled its 1914 supply without tapping any fresh source whatsoever. The scheme would cost £2,500,000, which would appear to be a very heavy burden to place upon the shoulders of a borough of only 78,000 people, or a rateable value of £400,000, and rates at present 18s. in the £. On the other hand, Chester, Wrexham and the vicinity have a population as large as that of Warrington, and one which is, moreover, capable of infinitely greater expansion. Their rateable value is about the same, and so it cannot be seriously contended that this is a case of a poorer district attempting to hold up one which is wealthier and more enterprising.
Our plea is for fair play and bare justice. I submit that it is not right to put the towns and districts which object to this scheme, because it vitally affects their interests, to the expense of a long inquiry, when the whole principle underlying the Bill is thoroughly bad. It is contended by Chester that this Bill is not a legitimate Bill, but is an example of the megalomania of water grab, regardless of justice. Let me take, very briefly, the case of Chester. Chester's view is that this Bill, not only in its minor details, hut in its whole general conception, would be extremely detrimental to the best
interests of the city. Warrington proposes to draw all its water from the river Ceiriog, which is one of the few remaining head waters of the river Dee, on which Chester stands. The effect of this scheme on Chester and the life of the city may be summed up as follows. It would take a large amount of pure water from the river Dee which is already, in periods of drought and in summer time, extremely low, and it is thought that if this scheme goes through it will become dangerously so. The bed of the Dee, which is navigable as a tidal river as far up as Chester, has now become silted up by sand, which is carried in by the tidal waves from the estuary. This silting is only held in check by the scouring action of the flood waters coming down from the upper reaches of the river. Even now, constant dredging is essential if the navigable channels are to be kept open. If this scheme goes through it is thought that a greatly increased cost in dredging will be entailed. Even then, it is doubtful whether it will be possible to keep open the navigable channels, which will, if closed, have a most adverse effect on the trade of Chester.
Already the reservoirs constructed in recent years by the Birkenhead Corporation have had a most adverse effect on the river in this direction. The City Council owns the quays, wharves and other property on the banks of the river, and the diminution in the volume of trade would affect the values of those properties. The salmon fishing on the Dee, which is a very important local industry, would be very seriously affected by this scheme, because the compensation water provided in the Bill would not have the same effect as the floods and freshets by means of which the salmon reach their spawning ground. The diminution in the volume of water in the river would seriously affect and impair the working of the city hydraulic electricity works, and would also detract from the amenity of pleasure boating on the River Dee, which is one of the principal attractions to large numbers of visitors to Chester. At the time of spring tides, the tidal waves from the estuary, if they were no longer opposed by the same amount of down-coming water, would proceed higher up the river, carrying with them a large amount of polluting matter, which would become a very serious danger to the public health of the city. The city waterworks intake is in
the upper part of the river, and already, under the arrangements which have been made in regard to the watershed with the Birkenhead Corporation and the Shropshire Union Canal Company, the quantity of water in the river has become seriously depleted, and if there is any further reduction Chester will be forced to draw its water supply from thickly populated and, therefore, more contaminated

areas. I submit that the views of Chester on this matter are such as to put the Bill out of court, and I accordingly invite the House to reject it, both on the grounds that I have specified and on the ground of common fairplay.

Question put, "That the word 'now ' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 276; Noes, 91.

Division No. 36.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adams, D.
Ellis, R. G.
Jephcott, A. R.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Jones. J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)
Falconer, J.
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)


Amman, Charles George
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel


Apsley, Lord
Foot, Isaac
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Foreman, Sir Henry
Kirkwood, D.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.


Attlee, C. R.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lansbury, George


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Furness, G. J.
Lawson, John James


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Leach, W.


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Gates, Percy
Lee, F.


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)


Barnes, A.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Linfield, F. C.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Gosling, Harry
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Batey, Joseph
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)


Becker, Harry
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Lorimer, H. D.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Lowth, T.


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Lumley, L. R.


Betterton, Henry B.
Greaves-Lord. Walter
Lunn, William


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Greenall, T.
M'Entee, V. L.


Blundell, F. N.
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Bonwick, A.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Groves, T.
Manville, Edward


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Guthrie, Thomas Maule
March, S.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Margesson, H. D. R.


Brass, Captain W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Maxton, James


Brittain, Sir Harry
Halstead, Major D.
Middleton, G.


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Millar, J. D.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Molloy, Major L. G. S.


Bruford, R.
Harbord, Arthur
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Bruton Sir James
Harney, E. A.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Buchanan, G.
Harvey, Major S. E.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Buckle, J.
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hayday, Arthur
Muir, John W.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hemmerde, E. G.
Murchison, C. K.


Burgess, S.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A, (N'castle, E.)
Murnin, H.


Butcher, Sir John George
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Nall, Major Joseph


Buxton Charles (Accrington)
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Nesbitt, Robert C.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Herriotts, J.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Cairns, John
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Nicholson, Brig,-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Cape, Thomas
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Nichol, Robert


Chapman, Sir S.
Hill, A.
O'Grady, Captain James


Chapple, W. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Oliver, George Harold


Charleton, H. C.
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Paget, T. G.


Clayton, G. C.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Paling, W.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Colvin, Brig .-General Richard Beale
Hood, Sir Joseph
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Pease, William Edwin


Cowan, D. M, (Scottish Universities)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Penny, Frederick George


Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)
Houfton, John Plowright
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Phillipps, Vivian


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Hudson, Capt. A.
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hughes, Collingwood
Potts, John S.


Doyle, N. Gratton
Hurd, Percy A.
Pringle, W. M. R.


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Raine, W.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Irving, Dan
Remer, J. R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Rentoul, G. S.


Reynolds, W. G. W.
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.
Tubbs, S. W.


Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Singleton, J. E.
Turner, Ben


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Sitch, Charles H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Riley, Ben
Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Wallace, Captain E.


Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Sneil, Harry
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Snowden, Philip
Warne, G. H


Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)
Sparkes, H. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)
Welsh, J. C.


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Stanley, Lord
Westwood, J.


Royce, William Stapleton
Stephen, Campbell
Wheatley, J.


Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Whiteley, W.


Russell, William (Bolton)
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth
Whitla, Sir William


Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton
Williams, T (York, Don Valley)


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Sullivan, J.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Leslie O. (P'tsm'th.S.)


Sanders. Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Sykes. Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wise, Frederick


Scrymgeour, E.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wolmer, Viscount


Sexton, James
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Wright, W.


Shinwell. Emanuel
Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Shipwright, Captain D.
Titchfield, Marquess of



Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Tout, W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Sir Harold Smith and Captain Reid.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Fildes. Henry
Parker, H. (Hanley)


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.,
Forestler-Walker, L.
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Ponsonby, Arthur


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Price, E. G.


Bowdler, W. A.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Richards, R.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Broad, F. A.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Ritson, J.


Bromfield, William
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Hardie, George D.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Saklatvala, S.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hinds, John
Salter, Dr. A.


Clarry, Reginald George
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Sinclair, Sir A.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Conway. Sir W. Martin
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Cope, Major William
Jones, R, T. (Carnarvon)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sutcliffe, T.


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Lewis, Thomas A.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Lort-Williams, J.
Wallhead, Richard c.


Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lougher, L.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
McLaren, Andrew
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Duffy, T. Gavan
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Duncan, C.
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Ede, James Chuter
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Edge, Captain Sir William
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H



Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Newman, sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Mr. Gould and Mr. Morgan Jones.


Fairbairn, R. R.




Bill read a Second Time, and committed.

Orders of the Day — WAR PENSIONS ACTS.

Mr. FREDERICK ROBERTS: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Regulations, dated the 23rd day of January, 1923, made by the Minister of Pensions under The War Pensions Act, 1921, entitled the War Pensions Committee (General) Regulations, 1923, be annulled.
This is apparently the only way we can protest against Regulations of this kind which are submitted in this form by the
Ministry of Pensions. I am sorry to keep hon. Members from a well-earned rest but this question is of such imporance that we are forced to register all the practical opposition we can I am hoping that the point of view which is given expression to is one which will not be confined to these benches, because we know full well that in matters which concern and affect ex-Service men the sympathy which ought to be expressed is by no means confined to any particular party in this Chamber. I hope that as long as pension grievances remain to be redressed—and many of them are still in existence—that we shall find all parties
in this Chamber willing to co-operate for the common good of the ex-Service men; but, so far as some of us are concerned, the action now taken in this matter is only consistent with the policy which was adopted when the War Pensions Act, 1921, was under review. When the last Act, which gave such vast powers to the Minister of Pensions, was under discussion, fears were expressed that prejudicial Departmental Regulations might be brought forward. My own personal views were expressed on the Third Reading of that Bill, and I claim the indulgence of the House while I make quotations from the observations I then made. I said in 1921—
There seems to be at the present moment an inclination in some quarters to make it as difficult as possible for certain classes of ex-Service men to secure their pensions. There seems to be an inclination to sacrifice every consideration to economy.
In the same speech, addressing the Minister of Pensions, I said—
My only fear is that when this measure becomes operative there may be a tendency to make it more difficult for certain classes of applicants to get the pensions which they desire and deserve.
I stand by every word which was then spoken, and I believe the opinion which I then expressed has been more than justified by the current Regulations, which were then brought into operation, and certainly more than justified by the present set of Regulations which the Minister has produced. On the Regulations now before the House, to which we have drawn attention, I have been induced to take this action, because I strongly object to any curtailment of Committee powers, rights or privileges. Success in administration, if there is to be any success at all—and everyone desires it—depends upon complete confidence being established between the local bodies and the central organisation. The system adopted and now developed in this particular set of Regulations seems likely to destroy that general confidence, and certainly this is not going to be to the general good either of the working Committees or of those who ought to be receiving the benefit of their pensions from the department.
I wish it could have been possible—and I hope it still may be ruled so—that on the first clause of Page 2, dealing with Royal Warrants, Orders in Council,
Orders or Amendments in Substitution—for a general discussion to take place on the whole question of pensions grants and administration; but I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, to trespass too far into that realm for fear of coining under the rule of your own authority and thus preventing any such general discussion. It should, therefore, be sufficient for the moment to say on this point that I believe that there are strong grounds for immediate reforms being instituted in connection with pensions grants and administration. The first point to which I wish to direct attention is Regulation 6 which provides that
a committee shall bold their ordinary meetings on such days and at such hours as they may determine and at such periods and places as may be fixed by or in pursuance et the scheme establishing these committees.
As I understand it, each scheme works separately in the particular area in which it is considered. I wonder, therefore, why the next provision has been added—
Provided that the time and place of the first meeting of the committee shall be fixed by the Minister.
Then there is the proviso—
All meetings of the committee should be summoned by the clerk and a special committee shall subject to the approval of the Minister be so summoned on a requisition in writing by the chairman or any five members of the committee.
A good purpose would be served if the words
subject to the approval of the Minister 
were deleted from that particular Clause, because the suggestion seems to me to have no other result than the destruction of the confidence which ought to exist between the Committee and the Minister. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head and I am glad to observe that lie has no such intention, but in actual working no other result can accrue from a Regulation of this description. It seems to me that in this clause there is a policy which we can only call in a certain sense derogatory to the pensions committees of this country. I can see no reason for dragooning the committees in this way. I desire that no such authority s that should be exercised over them.
The next Clause to which I wish to refer is Regulation 12. Paragraph 2 makes provision in the case of applicants under the special grants committees
Regulations requiring an investigation of the facts relating to the financial position of applicants prior to treatment, and so on. I suggest that the words
under the special grants committees regulations 
should be deleted. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us why these words were inserted. I want to see increased powers given to committees and not limited powers in the sense suggested under this provision. If these words were deleted I am of opinion that a Regulation might be framed which would enable various other matters such as need pensions to come under consideration as well as pre-War dependency. Regulation 13 says:
In considering individual cases the Committee should sit in private session.
As one who has been a member of a pensions committee, I know that it would be very unwise and injudicious to suggest that all cases should be considered in public session I can appreciate fully that strong objections could be raised to any such suggestion. I do not as a rule agree with permissive regulations or legislation, but I think that in this connection Committees might well be entrusted with the right of using their own discretion as to whether a case should be heard in public or private session, and I believe that a very wise suggestion would be the substitution of "may" instead of "shall" in Clause 13. If this Regulation stands, which compels cases to be heard in private session, there might be some features which, though essentially of a public nature, would have to be kept within closed doors. There has arisen to-day a position in connection with pensions administration which seems to point to the urgent necessity of more ventilation being given to the circumstances of every case, and possibly to their being brought into the light of day.
I come next to Regulation 15. It makes provision that a Committee shall, if necessary, appoint such of its members as it may think fit, not exceeding nine in number, to act as a General Purposes Committee; and a further Clause makes provision that another Sub-Committee may be appointed, six in number, who shall exercise the functions of a Children's Committee. Nine and six are only fifteen,
and yet there are twenty-five members of some of these Committees. It seems to interfere with the successful working of the Committees by forcing ten of their number to remain idle practically from the day of their appointment, or, at any rate, if they came to the very infrequent meetings of the full Committee, they can exercise only a measure of ratification of business which has already been discharged by the sub-committees concerned, and which, in every case, will have been found to have secured the full sanction either of the Minister or of his officers in the areas or regions. I am wondering whether this particular proposal is one of the ideas in the minds of the departmental officers in order to exercise a greater measure of economy, thinking that by declining to call into being the full members of the Committee they may save something. If that be the idea, the possible saving is so infinitesimal as to be out of comparison with the good which would result if the whole Committee were entrusted with full responsibility.
Therefore, I suggest that the numbers in this Regulation should be deleted and that the whole of the Members be given an opportunity of serving either on the General Purposes Committee or on the Children's Sub-Committee.
In Regulation 15 there is another provision which says, "Provided that the meetings of the Committee shall be held at such intervals as may be approved by the Minister." I am tempted to ask why it should be necessary to have the Minister's approval. If the Committee cannot be entrusted to carry out the functions which are laid down by the Act of Parliament, it has no right to exist at all. In this Clause it is suggested also that certain members should be co-opted and that they should be voluntary workers.
In my own experience as a voluntary worker, I know there was a time when no provision was made to meet the expenses of those serving as voluntary workers. The least provision that should be made under a Regulation of this description, for voluntary workers who may be called upon to travel long distances to carry out their duties, is for the Minister to arrange, at any rate, for payment of travelling and subsistence allowances. I believe there are still public-spirited men and women willing and capable of working in connection with pensions administration,
and it would be a, very wise and gracious provision for the Minister to make. The next Regulation I wish to quote is Regulation 19. It is headed, "Recommendations to the Minister," and it reads as follows:
Any recommendation which a committee may desire to make in regard to the administration of war pensions in their area, shall be submitted by way of resolution, through the regional director to the Minister, provided that before making such recommendation the committee shall consult the chief area officer.
I believe there is only one just way of dealing with a proposal of that description, and that is to withdraw it immediately. A proposal of this nature seems to show an entire want of confidence in those who are being called upon to discharge important functions in connection with pensions administration, and any body with a shred of independence would not, I feel certain, accept such a provision as a condition of their appointment. Further than that, I believe if it were put into operation, it could not possibly conduce to the smooth working which is so desirable. A few days ago I addressed a question to the Minister on this very point dealing with the interchange of views between one pensions authority and another. The Minister in reply said:
While I have no objection to one committee communicating with another on a matter concerning administration of war pensions, I have communicated my opinion to all other committees, that the practice is not the meet effective means of securing attention in a matter which the committee desire to see remedied.
If that is not the most effective way, I should esteem it a great privilege if the Minister would indicate what is the effective remedy which he proposes. If he can suggest one, I should be quite willing to empty my letter files of many scores of terribly sad and sordid cases, which up to the present have not secured the assistance they deserve and I should be personally grateful to him.
Regulation 21 makes the provision that a Committee
may call for reports regarding an individual case or such other matter as may be relevant to any subject properly before the committee.
It goes on to say:
Requests for these reports shall be made to the chief area officer, who, if he considers that the circumstances do not justify the request, may represent the facts to the regional
director, who shall thereupon decide upon the request.
I would like the right hon. Gentleman to give some information .as to why the Committees should have to ask for reports from the chief area officer, and I think if the first paragraph of the Regulation were deleted altogether, from the word "Requests" down to the latter word "request" the justice of the case would be met and the Administration could be carried on more effectively.
With regard to the need for establishing local communication and assisting the growth of confidence between the Minister and those whom he is asking to perform this work, I should like to be permitted to quote one case as an illustration, where the necessary and vital contact between the Minister and the local committee seems to have been destroyed, contact which must be continued if Regulations like these are to be brought into operation. I know many other cases could be given, not only by myself, but by practically every Member of this House. The results might be just a little varied, and the decisions might be different, but I believe the essential facts in every instance would be similar to those of the case which I am asking the privilege to quote as an illustration of the need for building up sympathetic contact between the Minister and the local committee.
The case is that of Mrs. Southern, of 40, Gifford Street, Caledonian Road, London. Mrs. Southern is a widow with eight children. She has four children under 14 years of age, who are entirely dependent, and four over 14, three of them working casually and one out of work. Mrs. Southern's husband enlisted in 1914, served in France for two years, from 1918 to 1919 was treated in various hospitals for gastric ulcers, and was discharged unfit for further service owing to gastric ulcers. A full pension for six months was granted, and then he was told he was fit for work. He worked a little casually until 1919, then had treatment at the Royal Free Hospital and an operation for gastric ulcers. In 1920 he was declared unfit for work, and he returned for treatment to the Royal Free Hospital, again for gastric ulcers. On 17th June, 1920, an operation to the nose was performed as part of the treatment which had been prescribed for him, and on 23rd
June this unfortunate man died on the operating table. The widow waited for four weeks, and then received a pension of £3 2s 6d. per week for three months. At the end of that period the pension was stopped entirely, and the final appeal was dismissed.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: That is one case out of thousands.

Mr. ROBERTS: This woman has been compelled to seek assistance from the Poor Law, and is now in receipt of 21 weekly, for seven persons, after allowing for the casual earnings of the three children who are sometimes able to work. It seems to me that the point I desire to establish as to the need for contact between the Minister and the local committees is well demonstrated here. Administrative Regulations seem to have been responsible for depriving this poor woman of her pension rights, and I believe that if the broad principle of the pensions settlement and administration could have operated in a case like this, there is not the slightest reason to believe it would not have been granted.

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I do not quite understand who would have granted that pension.

Mr. ROBERTS: If the local committee had had greater powers than they now enjoy, they could have influenced the recommendations and would have understood this ease, which understanding cannot come to the purely official mind. That is the observation I desire to make. When Parliament promised justice to the ex-service men and their dependants, I believe everyone in this House and outside regarded it as a sacred pledge, one that no administrative powers or the rights of tribunals ought to be permitted to destroy. I want to say here that, despite all the good work that the Ministry has done—and we know it has accomplished a great deal in this direction—so long as there exists one case like this, which I quoted from the records of thousands of cases, the Ministry can only be said to have failed in the discharge of the duty which it owes, in accordance with the promises made to the men when we asked them to protect the country in its greatest hour of danger.
Regulations like these now under review do not seem to me to be capable of bringing an end to what is, I believe, admitted on all sides to be a most unsatisfactory position in connection with many hundreds of these cases. If these Regulations follow on those which have already been operating, it seems to me they are bound to lead to further chaos in administration, they will force larger numbers of disabled men into periods of misery, both of body and of mind, they will prevent widows from securing justice, and they will deprive the orphans of the fallen soldiers of that subsistence allowance which is their due. It may even cause many more to be added to the list of those unfortunate fellows who have had recourse to poor law assistance and other sheltering institutions by reason of losing their reason owing to war service.
I have, I think, made the points I desire to advance against these Regulations sufficiently clear. We have no desire to stand before the House or to confront the Minister as mere earning critics, or to try and pick holes in the regulations simply to waste his time and our own. We are keenly desirous to render him and his Department all the assistance that lies in our power. We want to see the local committees functioning, as we know they can and might with full power and responsibility behind them, without which their good work is bound to he nullified. We feel we should not be Performing our duty if we did not protest and try to get Amended regulations.

Mr. SPEAKER: Before we proceed, I think I ought to say, for the guidance of the House, that nothing in the nature of a general discussion on pensions is allowable on this Motion. The occasion for that is, of course, on the salary of the Minister. What is open for discussion now is whether these Regulations are properly and wisely made under the Act of 1921.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to second the Motion.
This memorial has been presented in judicious terms by my hon. Friend. I want to make a complaint against the Minister. We are here to-night discussing Regulations that are going to have a profound effect upon the men whom this country said it would
look after. These Regulations are to guide the activities of the local committees, and there are not a dozen Members in the House at the moment who have the Regulations in their possession. If hon. Members could have sat down and read the Regulations under which the local committees are to act. I venture to say that neither on this or the other side of the House would there be any inclination to accept them. I know that under the Act the Minister is instructed to provide a copy of Regulations in the Library. But if one desires to examine the Regulations closely what one has to do is to get the number, and then go to the Stationery Office and purchase a copy. We are discussing these Regulations to-night, because the House became well aware, during the debates on the Bill, that the Act would work such a revolution in the administration of pensions that it was necessary that the conditions of the pensioners should be safeguarded by some means. It was therefore insisted that the Regulations should be laid on the table of the House before coming into force. What did the Act do? It is necessary to understand this in order to appreciate the effect the Regulations are intended to have. The Act takes the power of the employment of various officials out of the hands of the local committee. It completely changed the status of the officers. I am not complaining of that. The Act was in itself a revolution. It reduced the number of local committees from 1,200 to a maximum of 453 and to-day instead of there being 453 there are only 161 committees operating all over the country. We are now discussing the Regulations under which the local committees are operating. It seems to me that if the local committees are to do any useful work they ought to be free to help the Ministry and free to criticise it if necessary. As a matter of fact, during the Debate to which I have referred the late Minister of Pensions said:
I have admitted that the local committees are essential to the work of the local officers, and in any case the local committee is a valuable critic of the Ministry and the Government.
I think the Minister will admit that there is not very much possibility of the local committees criticising the Ministry or the
Government or even efficiently criticising the administration of the officers concerned should these rules operate. Again the right hon. Gentleman himself said during the passage of the Bill:
May I, from personal experience, pay e tribute to the great services which the local committees have rendered to the pensioner and to the country. This Ministry was suddenly founded in 1917 with about half a million of people to care for, and now the number has grown to 3½ millions. There was no mechanism and no arrangement in the various areas with which we could keep in touch. We are glad to maintain that valuable personal help which we appreciate so much. This change is not in the direction of a diminution of their advice and help; it is rather a change in the position of their staff.
No, it is not a change in the direction of a diminution of their advice. Let us examine it a little closer. The House did not contemplate at all that these local committees should be cribbed, cabined and confined by a regulation of this kind. A handbook issued by the Ministry at that time shows that the Committee actually made rules for their own procedure. I do not know what is wrong about that. If there is anything a Committee ought: to be allowed to do if it is going to help the Ministry and the pensioner, surely it ought to be free to lay down its own regulations and decide its own conditions. But as a matter of fact they are not allowed to do anything of the kind. There is a regulation here which says that they shall not discuss any individual cases in public. Of course, there may be delicate cases which it would not be wise to discuss in public, but surely the right hon. Gentleman and the House will agree that members of these local pension committees are people of some experience in public affairs, and should be credited with sufficient sense and judgment to be able to decide when a case shall be discussed in public and when it should be taken in private. The decision whether a case should be discussed in public or not is not the fundamental thing. The fundamental thing is that when they get a case to discuss in which there has been gross maladministration concerning a man and his dependents the Ministry does not want it to be discussed in public. That has already happened on local committees and is considered to be dangerous.
From beginning to end of these regulations there is a tampering of their freedom
of action. The local committee had power to hold special meetings. Now they are only to do so if the Area, Officer agrees. They can call for confidential papers—if the Regional Officer agrees as far as I can see it is only the office boy who is not to interfere with them and the Ministry might just as well lay it down that members of the committee shall consult him about their comings and goings and what they should do. I make this declaration that these Regulations are the final stage in the plot against the pensioner. The Pension Officers were removed out of the jurisdiction of the local people; the number of local Committees has been reduced from 1200 to 161 and no one knows scarcely where they are. At the time I pointed out the one objection to the change that was taking place was that it would keep the local Committee out of touch with the pensioner himself, and that personal touch is after all the real value of any Committee or of any Ministry. What. is the result now? Here is a Regulation 31, which decides to set up voluntary committees to form a link between local committees and the pensioner himself. I had a man at my home on Sunday. His case is a tragedy from our point of view.
We do not meet regional officers; we do not meet area officers. We go home, and hear stories of tragedies. A man came to my home, whose son was dying, and the man did not know where to go and where the local committee was. There used to be a local committee which covered 87,000 cases of people in my area; it now covers 237,000, and nobody knows exactly where it is. Now and then we get a sort of flash in the pan, when there is criticism or something of that sort, and I suppose that is the awkward thing about it. The Minister of Pensions has laid down these Regulations to stop even that. I dare say it is possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make a good speech in defence of his Regulations. He has made a few good speeches during this Session, but the letters come in next morning, and when hon. Gentlemen who support the right hon. Gentleman read their letters in the morning they are not quite so sure that the defence made was as sufficient as they had thought the night before. We go home to our people and we meet these men and their dependants, over whom the Great War machine has rolled, and left
young men who ought to be in the beauty and strength of life worse than old men.
My hon. Friend quoted a case that was the result of not being able to come into contact with the local committee, and we could all quote cases. I could quote cases in which men have said to me "I should not care if I were dead tomorrow if I were only sure that the kiddies and the wife were looked after. They have lost hold of life, and now, at this moment, where there is such complaint coming in on every hand—every hon. Member here knows that that is true—the right hon. Gentleman chooses to put down such Regulations as this which are going to make it impossible for self-respecting men to act upon these Committees. I say to my friends, and to this House, that there is not a man or woman with self-respect and with any experience of public affairs who would sit on a Committee under such Regulations as these. So far as I am concerned, anxious as I am to do justice to, to sympathise with and help ex-Service men, I shall do my best to see that the people who sit upon the Pensions Committees understand the conditions under which they have to act. I think it would be better for this camouflage to be set aside and the whole machinery to be shown for what it is rather than for men and women to give their services and to continue such a state of things as this.
I have not dealt in detail with these Regulations, because my hon. Friend did so. I appeal to the Minister of Pensions and to hon. Members on all sides of the House to use their influence to see that these Regulations are held up. I am convinced that the ultimate result—and that is all we care for—upon the pensioner himself and his dependants will be somewhat disastrous. I want to make one concluding remark. The result of all this is that there is economy in administration. Pensions are £16,000,000 down this year. The axe with which Sir Erie Geddes cleaved his way to the head of the Federation of British Industries is the same weapon which knocked £16,000,000 off the pensioners. I can understand that tile right hon. Gentleman will probably, with the same axe, fight his way into the Cabinet. The House can take this from me, that they will leave behind a heritage of dissatisfaction and a sense of injustice
that will not be creditable to this country. We, on this side, and I, at least, do not want to make this a party question. I hope I co-operate with all sides of the House in most questions affecting ex-Service men, and I want the House to use its judgment and to see that these Regulations are held up.

Major TRYON: I will begin by referring the last comment made by the hon. Member, that, if I fight my way into the Cabinet, it will be with an axe applied to the pensioners. That charge is false. It is a pity that the hon. Member should discredit his party and cause by making a charge which he must know to be false.

Mr. LAWSON: I made the statement very deliberately, and I do not hesitate to repeat it

Major TRYON: The hon. Member is prepared to repeat it, whether the charge be true or not. Therefore I leave it at that. He referred to the Geddes Committee. The Geddes Committee suggested economies on pensions, but the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) and myself were the two Ministers who resisted the Geddes Committee's proposal. We carried our proposal through in the Cabinet that economy should not be made at the cost of the pensioner, but in the cost of administration. Therefore, I hope the House well know that, although the hon. Member will not withdraw, he knows it is untrue.

Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. I should like to know from the Minister the number of ex-service men pensioners who have been discharged from the administration department.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.

Major TRYON: On the rest of the discussion I find myself much more in agreement with the two hon. Members than they will perhaps believe. One of them alluded to the fact that his pockets are full of pension cases. We want to develop the local committees. We want to develop the areas. There is no worse place to attempt to settle individual cases than the House of Commons, because the House of Commons has not the time. The right thing is for the pensioners to learn more and more to go to the local offices established at the expense of the
State for their benefit, that the men should know where they can go, and that they should have more and more the assistance of voluntary workers to help them to their rights. We want to develop the voluntary committees and the voluntary workers.
12. M.
A proposal was put forward two or three nights ago from the Labour Benches, that the proper way to settle pensions questions is to have a small committee consisting of one or two Members and that the Minister of Pensions should settle all doubtful cases himself. That is absolutely impossible. There are 2,500,000 people drawing pensions and allowances of various kinds. If hon. Members wish in any way to help the Ministry, and I am sure they do, they cannot do more to help us and to help themselves than by getting the idea into the minds of the pensioners that the right and proper course is to go to the local area office and to enlist the help of the voluntary workers, rather than write to the local Member of Parliament. [AN HON. MEMBER: "That is the pensioner's last chance of justice."] It is not his last chance of justice. The House has decided that his last chance of justice is to go to the tribunals which have been set up. It is not possible that hundreds and thousands of cases should be settled in the House of Commons by debate. It cannot be done. One hon. Member who has been very energetic in the matter tried for three or four days to bring forward a few individual cases. He brought forward seven, and left me three minutes in which to reply. That shows what happens if we try to debate individual cases in this House. The proper thing is what the two hon. Members are standing for, namely to develop the area office as the centre to which everyone wanting a pension can go, instead of going to his Member of Parliament. If he wants help, he should go there, and not to his Member of Parliament. They ought to go to the voluntary workers, of whom we want more. I think that on the points which have been raised perhaps the two hon. Members, though I am not blaming them, are not fully aware of what has been done. We have been drawing up these arrangements with the assistance of a representative of the ex-service
men, against whom these speeches constitute a very serious charge, and there is no more loyal man. We have also had the assistance of some of the best voluntary workers, who have been going round and getting in touch, and it is partly on their recommendation that these Regulations have been drawn up. More than that, while the two hon. Members have a legitimate pride that they have brought up the case of the pensioner in the House of Commons, may I say that they are a little late, because some weeks ago I took the advice of the Central Advisory Committee, which has on it ex-service men, voluntary workers, and help of all kinds, as well as Members of every party in this House. I put to them the question, "how are these new areas working?" That was not in consequence of an attack made upon the Ministry, but on the initiative which I took myself of consulting all these gentlemen, who have a great knowledge of the subject, and of asking them what ought we to do and what fault could they find. They put forward various suggestions. One was in regard to the expenses of the voluntary workers, and we are going into that. Another was in regard to the question, which has now, some time afterwards, been raised, of how often these Committees should meet. We have framed these Regulations, after consulting the Committees, but if there are committees who want to meet more frequently, I should be glad to consider suggestions from them, and to consider favourably proposals that they should meet more frequently, because we want their help. I cannot agree that there should be absolutely no limit to the number of occasions when the full committee meets, because I am informed that in some outlying districts the meeting of a committee may cost from £100 to £200 for every meeting, and therefore the suggestion that there should be no limitation on the number of meetings is one which would mean a large public expenditure, no part of which would in any way reach the pensioners. As I have said, however, if they wish to meet more frequently, we shall be very glad favourably to consider it.
I think that perhaps the two hon. Members have been a little hard on the new system. I know that I cannot now debate the general question under the
Rules of Order, but it was accepted by all parties in the House. These regulations do not limit what the ex-service men are getting; the powers of these committees are not decided by the regulations, but by the Act, which went through without any one hon. Member in the whole House voting against it, and therefore not only did every Member of the last Parliament take part and acknowledge, by not voting, that he approved of these Acts when they went through, but the powers and duties are laid down on the lines of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, on which there was a representative of the Labour party, who fully agreed.

Mr. ROBERTS: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman for a moment I As I have already indicated, when the last Act was passed I deliberately stated that I did raise an objection, and the contention I made then and make now is that the Act would make it very difficult for certain men to get their pension rights. I made that observation deliberately, and I stand by it now as fully justified.

Major TRYON: I understand the hon. Member's quotation, and I cannot grant him his point. The fact remains that the House as a whole, without anyone voting against it, decided that the pensions were to be administered in this way, and these Regulations in no sense limit the issue of money to the pensioner.

Mr. LAWSON: Is it fair to use a statement like that, when the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that I myself criticised the Act very adversely? I move its rejection, and it was only on the appeal for unity that I did not carry it to a Division.

Major TRYON: I should have thought that whether the hon. Member voted for the Bill or not was his responsibility.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: We shall not forget it

Major TRYON: Nor shall I.

Mr. SPEAKER: As I said a little while ago, the merits of the Act are not now open to discussion. It is an Act, and the only question is whether these are Regulations properly made under the Act.

Major TRYON: I will endeavour only to touch on it in this way, that criticism
against these Regulations that they limit the chance of a man getting a pension and limit the control of the money is not accurate, because these Regulations do not limit the control of money. That was done under the Act, which we cannot discuss. On the question of expense, we are carefully considering more frequent meetings of the Committees. After all, it is not the main Committee that is needed for constant meetings. There are the two Sub-Committees, one dealing with general purposes and the other with children, which can meet more frequently and which are less numerous. What we want is a very large and increasing number of voluntary workers throughout the country, and we have with that object started groups of voluntary workers in the outlying districts so as to keep the pensioner in touch with them and with his rights. Therefore the position is really this, that, if this Motion be carried, every object for which the hon. Member has spoken will be defeated. The work will go on, but if the Motion be carried, it will mean that the whole of the setting up of these voluntary committees will be stopped and the whole of the new area system will be deprived of the advantages of the voluntary committee. When the hon. Member said no one would be willing to serve under such conditions, he was not doing a good service to the pensioners. What is wanted is that more people should come forward from every direction.

Mr. LAWSON: If the Motion is carried and the Order is cancelled, is it within your province to introduce an amended Order straight away?

Major TRYON: The difficulty would be that the whole of the Regulations would fall to the ground, and there would be no means of proceeding with the committees. What we want, is to get more voluntary workers. While the hon. Member may say he is not willing, or suggests that people would not be willing to serve under the new conditions because they would not be acceptable to him, I am glad to say people are coming in very well. The whole of the, committees were practically formed in Scotland long ago, and it is only in some parts of the country which were begun quite late that we have not till recently completed the work. These Regulations do not limit anything that the ex-servicemen may get. They are
simply carrying out the Act. If they do not pass it will cause difficulties and delay the work of the Ministry, and it will do nothing whatever for the benefit of the ex-servicemen.

Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has warned us that if these Regulations are not passed the work of the Ministry and the committees which are now set up will be hampered. It may be that we should have to wait for another 21 days or perhaps a month, but there is nothing to prevent him, if the House decided that these new Regulations were not what we want, immediately setting to work to draft Regulations which the House would accept. It is rather a tall order for the Minister on an occasion like this to put a pistol to our heads and say, "You must accept these, or I shall brand you in the country as hindering the work of administering War pensions." The Pensions Minister says that when the Geddes axe was brought forward he and the late Minister of Pensions opposed the reductions, and that he went to work to cut down the cost of administration in order to save the pensions. He has been very unsuccessful so far as saving the pensions is concerned. I object to these Regulations mainly because I think they will go on to develop a sort of system whereby it will be more difficult for the pensioner or the claimant to a pension to get at the local people. What I do not understand is that the Minister of Pensions should stand up and make the kind of speech he has made to-night, and that I have heard him make on half-a-dozen occasions when his Department has been criticised. I took part in the work of the first War Pensions Committee before the, official War Pensions Committee was set up. Suddenly the new Ministry of Pensions sweeps down and practically wipes them all out of existence, and whereas we had a Committee dealing with a population of about 80,000, we have now a Committee dealing with 500,000. Five Parliamentary Divisions have been rolled into one, and now the applicants have to walk miles to get near the people who, the Minister says, are to help them to get their pensions. To me it is a mystery that one who speaks so frankly on this subject should make a statement such as we have heard to-night.
The right hon. Gentleman says people are coming forward to join the Committees.
I wonder whether his Department has kept from him the fact that the new Committee for the Tower Hamlets has for a month or five weeks past been vainly endeavouring to get at the Minister to tell him they cannot carry on their work under the conditions laid down. So far from these new Regulations keeping on the lines laid down, they should restore to the Committees very much of the power that has been taken from them. The Minister is always boasting of what the ex-Service man has done, and how the ex-Service man approves of what he does. I have to tell him that I am here by the votes of a very large mass of ex-Service men, and every day ex-Service men and their dependents call at my home. I live in this Division, and simply because the Committee has been wiped out I am bothered every day. If you are to amend the Regulations it should be along the lines of restoring to the Committees powers they formerly possessed.
I do not understand a Minister being so ignorant of the work of his Department. The Minister laughs; if he comes to the East End of London I will give him proof of what I am saying. Hon. and right Hon. Members opposite are continually saying this is not a party question. We have not made it a party question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] The British Legion came to me when I was a candidate and asked me certain questions. I answered these questions, and I am doing my best in this House to live up to the answers I gave them. That is why I am opposing these proposed Regulations, and want others of a different character.
Though I always give everybody to whom I am opposed credit for as good intentions as I hope they give me credit, I have never had anything which I said so misrepresented as I have been by the Minister. I never proposed that a Committee of this House should review the whole of the cases. I said distinctly that the hard cases which the Appeal Tribunals had not settled and could not settle and which came to us should be dealt with by this House. I stick to that. Under these Regulations you might have made provision somewhere for the very hard cases which the right hon. Gentleman admits exists in tens of thousands. You need not go out of London to get numberless cases of men and women
who cannot get what they think they are entitled to. But the Minister has no right to twist that proposition of mine, and to say that there are millions of cases for which that silly man opposite proposes a committee of this House. You have done your level best to abolish the local committees. You have given a sample of it in the Tower Hamlets where you have amalgamated five, and these regulations instead of perpetuating the new system should have abolished it. I am a little tired of hearing the Minister rebuke us and say that the whole House passed the Act, under which pensions are being administered. Surely it is possible even for this House to have made a mistake. If in the working of the Act you find that things do not go as smoothly as you think they ought, we have common sense enough to say "let us review them." I challenge any member to say that this Act and these regulations are working smoothly and if it were in order to do so, I could give dozens of cases in my own constituency, of people who are victims of the late war. That being so it is time that we made some other provision under these regulations to deal with cases that have been before the Appeal Tribunals.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter which would require to be dealt with by fresh legislation.

Mr. LANSBURY: I believe that the Minister has in some eases dealt with persons needing assistance after they have been turned down by the Appeal Tribunals. I forget how it was done but at any rate I have heard of persons who through pressure or some kind of driving force have been so dealt with. Whether it is legal or not I do not know.

Mr. STEPHEN: May I submit a point of Order in connection with your ruling, Mr. Speaker? If the Appeal Tribunal has not functioned properly, and decided the case, might we not consider that ease now; might it not become a subject for discussion to-night?

Mr. SPEAKER: No. On these Regulations, we have nothing to do with Appeal Tribunal. That is a matter quite apart from the Regulations. They govern the proceedings of the new area
committees, and on them we cannot raise the question of the Appeal Tribunal.

Mr. LANSBURY: My whole objection to the Regulations and to the principle underlying them, is that they aim at superseding the Committees and making the Committees into mere ciphers. I wish to point to one result of the work of the Ministry in dealing with the Committees and making them cover larger areas. In my own district, the numbers dealt with now are 50 per cent. less than previously. The taking away of power from the local committees, the taking of power away from the localities and the enlargement of the committees, has for some reason or other, had this result: that we people in Poplar have most of these cases rejected by the Ministry thrown on to the Poor Law and have been obliged to treat these men as paupers. The Minister and his Department have got to answer that criticism and to tell why that has happened. In the old days and under the old Regulations our Committee had power to investigate each case and power to make representations to the Ministry and we believed ourselves to be, as it were, in the capacity of counsel for the applicants in their appeal for what we considered to be justice from the Department. That has all been swept away. The Minister of Pensions has set up regional committees. He boasts about the representative character of those Committees, but here is a regional committee which is responsible for 33,000 people and there is not a single representative on it of the five boroughs of the Tower Hamlets—not a single representative from any one of the districts making up that huge area. How the. Minister can talk about setting up local committees to keep in teach with the pensioners, passes my comprehension. He cannot understand either the distances involved or the areas covered by these committees. If the Minister likes, I will leave him the names and particulars, but I wish to spare him as much as I can, and perhaps the names would not be familiar to him. There is another matter which is definitely connected with the work of the committees and which requires amendment. Here is a letter from the Minister of Pensions dated the 5th March, and sent out to all War Pensions Committees. I think this is the biggest piece of impudence of which
the Ministry has been guilty in its relationships with these committees.
It has been brought to notice that in certain instances the discussion of individual cases by Sub-Committees appointed under Regulation 15 of the War Pensions Committees General Regulations 1922, has subsequently formed the subject of reports in the Press. It is pointed out that the circumstances of individual eases are of a highly confidential nature, and it has been decided therefore, that when discussing cases, not only War Pensions Committees, but also General Purposes, and Children Sub-Committees shall sit in private session. The minutes of proceedings relating to the discussion of individual cases by War Pensions Committees or Sub-Committees should be placed on a separate sheet which will not ordinarily be circulated to the members, but shall be placed in the Minute Book, and be brought up for confirmation in private session at the next meeting. In every instance in which the Committee or Sub-Committee desire that copies of the entire minutes of proceedings shall be circulated to the members, the separate sheet referred to will be marked Strictly Confidential.' 
If that were intended to protect the pensioner no one would object, but what the Ministry is after is the prevention of discussion upon cases of the kind which we want to discuss here. At any rate, whether the Minister means that or not, that is the effect of the order. In nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out, of a thousand the person concerned, when denied what he considers to be his rights by the Pensions Ministry, would be very glad to get publicity for his case in the Press. I do not think the Minister has any right to deny such persons the publicity by which alone they can get justice done. There is another respect in which we think these Regulations ought to be amended. Some provision should be made so that when the Appeals Tribunal have decided cases, the men and women concerned should, if the decision has been in their favour, get whatever they are entitled to within a period of say twenty-one days. I understand that under the old Regulations which I think came into operation last August a man in my old area made application—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now raising a question which I said should be raised in Committee of Supply. It has nothing to do with the Motion for the Address which has been moved. These Regulations deal with the constitution and so forth of the Committees, and points of the kind raised by the hon. Member cannot be raised upon them.

Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to ask could not a new condition be inserted enabling Committees to take steps so that within a certain period a man who has won his case at the Appeals Tribunal could get that to which he was entitled?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that could be done at all. It is quite outside the purpose for which these Regulations have been framed under the Act.

Mr. LANSBURY: That only proves how extremely difficult it is to bring the Ministry of Pensions to book on these matters. It shows too, the uselessness of the committees in any circumstances. I will, however, take another opportunity, somehow or other, of raising the cases which I had desired to raise to-night. There is another matter which comes within the scope of these Regulations or at least I think it does. The Committees have no access to what are called the case papers. The Minister will not deny that statement. What these Committees exist for, I do not know. One would imagine that papers referring to the very case being dealt with by the Committee would be at the disposal of the Committee, but they are not. I have seen both the chairman, and the secretary of the Stepney and Poplar Committee to-night, and they inform me that the case papers of the cases which they are supposed to deal with, and any information which they need in regard to those cases are never available.
I take it that we might have a Regulation made in this new series stating that the case papers should be at the disposal of the Committees. I do not see how they can do the work at all and consequently the Minister, it seems to me, is doing exactly what the Seconder of the Motion said, preparing the way for getting rid of the Committees altogether. Already, under these Regulations, a person dependent on a soldier who has died or a disabled man is now shoved on to the Inland Revenue officers the same as an old age pensioner and treated in exactly the same way. The pensions and allowances are reduced.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Committee of Supply on the Estimates of the Pensions Ministry is the proper occasion on which to raise these matters. We must on these addresses to the Crown raise only matters
which are in order in so far as they are in pursuance of the Statute. The discussion must follow on these lines.

Mr. LANSBURY: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I must bow to your decision, but the administration of any law is as important as the law itself. The Minister and his Department are deliberately, or rather not deliberately, but ignorantly or wilfully getting round the Act of Parliament. I do not believe that this House and the men who blame the Royal Warrant—

Mr. SPEAKER: This has nothing to do with the Royal Warrant. The pensions under the Royal Warrant must be discussed in Committee of Supply, and not now.

Mr. LANSBURY: This morning as I left my house a woman whose case I have put before the Minister, the widow of a man who was in a good position before the war, and who has been broken through the war, came to me. That woman has eight children to keep, and this country will not give her a single farthing except under the Poor Law, owing to the manner in which the Minister frames the Regulations to administer the Royal Warrant. I am protesting against these rules and regulations, which are wilfully or ignorantly designed to take away from people like these what I believe Parliament and the country wants them to have. It is because I believe this that I think these new Regulations ought to be put on entirely different lines, so that people will not have to come to members of Parliament to state their cases.

Major TRYON: May I ask whether it is not the case that we are bound by the Act, and that it would be impossible to issue such new Regulations without an Act of Parliament?

Mr. LANSBURY: Then let us give up the cant that we are going to give pensions to ex-service men. Let us give up the cant and humbug that we care for the ex-service man. [Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER rose—

Mr. LANSBURY: You never have taken any heed of them. I want to say to the Minister of Pensions is that he is a Minister of Death. You are betraying the widows, and you are betraying the men
who sacrificed everything to keep the possessing classes in power in this country. You stood at that box and told people—

Mr. SPEAKER: Order, Order !

Mr. LANSBURY: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be put down. That man stands there, and says he wants to do justice to those ex-service men. His Department does not do justice to them. We have two thousand of them in our division. You told them they should never go on the poor law. Your Department and regulations are driving them to the poor law, and it is a disgrace to Britain and to everyone of you that it should happen.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will please remember to face me when he is speaking. Had he done so, he would have seen that I was standing. I have beer doing my best to point out to him that he must take the proper occasion on which to make his statement on these questions.

Mr. LANSBURY: We never get the proper occasion.

Major TRYON: I am an ex-service man myself. I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a point of Order.

Mr. SPEAKER: This has nothing to do with the Question before the House.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I listened very carefully to the defence that the Minister tried to put up for these regulations, and I never heard a poorer defence in my life. He tried to point out that these Regulations were going to be of some assistance to the ex-service man. My opinion is that these Regulations are there simply to override the Act of Parliament The object oil the Act was to make it easier for the ex-servicemen to get into touch with people whom they knew in order to try to get justice. The object of the Regulations is to make it impossible for these men to get into touch with the local pensions committees, and these committees have no power whatever. The power to-day is in the hands of the regional officer and the area officer, and whatever they decide or dictate or recommend to the Minister is carried out with red-tape officialism in London. I will give an illustration, if I may. Last November I brought a case before the Minister of Pensions of a
young man dying of tuberculosis. The Minister was sympathetic and said he would take the matter up at once. He sent the case to the officer supervising in South Wales. In a month's time I received a letter from the Minister that the officer had reported, and that he had decided it was impossible to do anything for this man. They could not send him to a sanatorium because the tribunal had decided against his case. He suggested I should do something as Member for the Division to assist the man, to get him into a sanatorium, and the Minister would consider any expense I was put to. But, I do not know whether I should say fortunately or unfortunately, before received his letter the poor fellow had passed away and I had to assist to bury him. If there had been a local Pensions Committee in power at all the Minister would have sent that case to the Local Pensions Committee, who would have understood it and been able to deal with it. But he sent to his officer, received an unfavourable report, and tried to throw the responsibility on one of the members of that district and on the friends upon whom this poor fellow relied.
These Regulations are to try to override the Act. What we want in the local Pensions Committee is to have power so that they would be able to deal fairly and justly with the ex-Service man when he passed forward his case. We get speeches from the Minister and from Members on the other side of the House. I know this for a fact, that some of the Members on the other side of the House, who have sufficient money, have been compelled to employ private secretaries to deal with all the eases of pensions that have been sent forward to them. We on this side of the House have to deal with them every day— 20, 30, 50 pension cases have been sent to us—and we have been reduced as Members of Parliament to the position of ordinary clerks to deal with all the correspondence. The Minister is ready with sympathy, and we get speeches from that side ready with sympathy. We want them to be as swift in action as they are ready in sympathy.

Mr. HOHLER: This is a very important matter. I myself have endeavoured to obtain these Regulations but unfortunately, hitherto without success. I listened attentively to the reasonable speech made by the mover of this Motion
I gathered that his complaints were several. They seemed to me very reasonable and I do not think they have been answered. I will pass from the speeches that followed and confine myself to what I considered the very reasonable and modest speech of the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. F. Roberts) who introduced this matter. He made the complaint that, under these Regulations, the local committees are so constituted or have so large an area to deal with that it is not reasonable to expect those who desire to apply to go such distances. This has been confirmed in the speeches of other hon. Members who are supporting this motion. I thought it was the great principle of justice—it certainly should be the great principle of the administration of pensions—to make it easy and convenient for the applicant to make his application. I gathered further that these committees are controlled in their sittings by the Minister of Pensions. I gathered—I may have misunderstood the speech—but I undersood that they can only meet on the sanction of the Minister of Pensions. That seems to me strange and most unreasonable. If I were on a local committee and I thought public attention should be called to a matter or that a pension was being improperly revised, I should think it my duty to call a meeting. I wholly protest that the Minister of Pensions should have the right to control me in the exercise of a function as a meber of a committee. It is not right.
As I understand it, on these local committees, you get men of independence and of every shade of opinion and the whole theory that when these committees were set up and established in a centre that they should be absolutely independent. Otherwise they are not worth having. I cannot for the life of me understand why the meetings should be controlled by the Minister of Pensions.
Then I gathered from the speech of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, that he conplained that these Regulations contained a provision that meetings cannot be held in public even if the Chairman thought proper or that it was the general desire of those present. Why on earth not? People do make mistakes, they have strong opinions about
these things and it may be that their tribunals make mistakes. Why on earth cannot these things be discussed in public? After all, there is some value in the Press in ventilating complaints. Again, I gathered from these Regulations, that as a member of a Committee—I am assuming I am a member, of course—I am not entitled to call for the papers. Surely these are the record of the case; it is vital for me to know the case with which I am dealing and if a Regulation prevents it there can be no justification for it. I am sorry because of the unpleasantness that has been introduced by the text of the debate, but I confess that, to my mind no satisfactory answer has been given by the Minister of Pensions. Considering that these men are the men who served the country and their widows who have suffered, it is our bounden duty to do everything for them. The one answer the Minister of Pensions made was not an answer at all.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that if we hold up these Regulations we shall in some way injure the pensioner. That is not true. The very fact that they were to be laid in the Library or on the table of this House would give us an opportunity to do this thing we have done. If anyone has discovered flaws in the Regulations we ought to be grateful. To say that this is going to do injury to the pensioner is not true in my judgment, for the very simple reason that if these Relations do that what is against a pensioner, a widow, or an orphan, we are going to perpetuate it if we allow them to pass. It is going to be against him or them for all time. I wish something could be done in the way of reconsideration of these Regulations. Wholly irrespective of what party it comes from, it is our desire only to see that the interests of these men are safeguarded. I have thought it my duty to address the House on this subject, and I should be glad if something could be done—if the Minister could see his way to reconsider these Regulations. It cannot take an immensity of time for the Ministry to see if they cannot meet the point. One of the greatest prerogatives of this country is freedom and that the committe should be free to call for papers whether they are against or for a man. What is there to be kept back? These seem to be petty points if they did not have such
serious consequences for those for whom we are speaking.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The House generally will appreciate the speech which has just been delivered, and it certainly calls for some reply from the Government. It is not only idle, but an insult, to suggest that anyone speaking at this time in the morning from any quarter of the House is doing so with the idea or intention of injuring the pensioners, and no one knows that better than the Minister of Pensions himself. It is one of the unfortunate flaws of our Parliamentary procedure that when everybody is tired and anxious to get home, this is the only possible opportunity of discussing and bringing to the light of day the grievances of thousands of ex-service men. Such a matter can only be taken after eleven o'clock at night, but surely those of us who are responsible for availing ourselves of that, which is the only opportunity, ought not to be told we are doing something to the injury of the pensioners. As a matter of fact, the correspondence of every Member in this House must convince him that the ex-service men feel to-day that there is a deliberate attempt to cheat them out of their rights, and they are justified in that belief for the reason that the psychology, the atmosphere and the consideration that is given to pensioners to-day is entirely different to that which was given them a few years ago. Now, what is shortly the situation? I cannot separate this warrant from the declaration of the General Election. Clear evidence was given in the earliest manifesto made that it was the intention to abolish the Ministry altogether.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is really much too general to the present case. Has the right hon. Gentleman got the Regulations in front of him? If he has, he will see that they are simply in pursuance of the Act, and are Regulations for the meetings of the committees, and so on.

Mr. THOMAS: No one would join issue with your anxiety to give a full debate, and to do justice to the difficulty of every Member, which is that we are dealing with Regulations that must of necessity affect the personal position of individuals. The difficulty in keeping within the limits of debate and order is in showing that these Regulations must by their very application affect particular
cases. That is the difficulty of the whole situation. Two illustrations have been given. An hon. Member has clearly pointed out the difficulty which must arise in areas. That is admitted, but no one could attempt to lay down here how many individuals that would affect. There is a whole series of circumstances which surround it and must be taken into consideration. Then there is the question of the tribunals being held in public. Surely one, in order to do justice to this, would have to visualise particular and specific cases. We can imagine a thousand circumstances which would warrant a chairman saying, "Never mind what the Warrant says. I feel this is a case in which I should determine the mater in public." For all these reasons, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will certainly withdraw the suggestion that those, taking part in this debate at this hour of the night are actuated by any other motive but to do justice to the pensioners. There is no answer to some of the complaints made.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I would just like to put a question to the Minister responsible for these Regulations with regard to Clause 33, which reads as follows:
The Committee when so required by the special Grants Committee shall directly, or indirectly through an appropriate sub-committee or group, consider or inquire into any question which involves the worthiness of a widow, a dependant…
1.0 A.M.
I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is going to be the duty of the suggested committee, and on what evidence, and from whom, are they going to deal with the worthiness, or otherwise, of any widow who happens to be in receipt of a pension After all, the widow ought not to be followed about or hounded about by any officer of the Ministry of Pensions, who is perhaps more concerned in retaining his official office and salary than in promoting the interest of the widow. For that reason I would like to know what is to be regarded by the Ministry as an act likely to warrant or justify any committee withdrawing any widow's pension? I would like to go further. If a pension had been awarded because a widow had lost her husband, is there any act that any woman can commit that would warrant a committee or sub-committee recommending the taking away of her pension?
First of all, she has suffered the loss of her husband, who went on active service for the purpose of doing what he conceived to be right in the best interests of his country. She was left at home with her family, and endured more perhaps than many Members of this House have been called upon to endure. After having suffered the loss of her husband, she ought not to be subjected either to the jurisdiction of sub-committees or full committees or to the prying eyes of any member of the staff attached to the Ministry of Pensions. Therefore I want the Minister to state what is likely to be an act which would warrant any committee in recommending the withdrawal of any pension received by a widow. I am putting these questions because I have a case in mind where a pension has actually been withdrawn on an ex parte case, probably arising from anonymous correspondence, when the widow had little or no opportunity of submitting her own case. I hope these cases are not going to be multiplied, for the suffering has been endured.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Captain Charles Craig): The Regulations which we are considering to-night contain some 34 Clauses, and I should like the Members of the House, who perhaps have not taken the trouble or had occasion to examine them, to understand that the sphere of activity which is covered by these regulations is very much larger than is generally supposed. They deal with such matters as the following. The first two Clauses deal with the actual conduct of the business of the committee—the appointment of a secretary, clerical assistance, and so on. The regulations then proceed to lay down the method by which the work of the committee is to be done; quorums how to vote; how to fill up vacancies what the position which the chief Area Officer is to hold; a matter which has been so frequently referred to, namely, the hearing of individual cases in private; the appointment of sub-committees; of children's committees; of group committees; making rules; giving powers to the committees to make rules for the conduct of business of sub-committees, recommendations made by committees to
the Minister, reports, and a very important matter, consideration of complaints by the persons who come before the committee; matters which are referred to the Minister; arrangements for the distribution of supplementary grants; care of children; administration in trust; chief Area Officer's control over payments, voluntary workers, records and where they are to be kept and so on. The House will thus see that the points touched on to-night affect only a very small part of the work which has to be performed by these committees. I submit that on a document covering such a large field the criticisms that have been made really affect only very few points, and I submit that the answer which has been given by my right hon. and gallant Friend to those criticisms has been as full as anybody could expect. The hon. and learned Member for Gillingham (Mr. Hohler) has summed up the various objections which have been taken to these regulations. The first one was that the areas were too large as constituted under the new Area Committee system. The question of the size of the areas has been met by the appointment of sub-committees, group committees, and voluntary workers; and to say, as one hon. Member said, that the Regulations were a plot against the pensioner is absolutely untrue. Far from that being the ease, the Ministry of Pensions desires that the personal touch between the committees and the voluntary workers and the pensioners should become stronger and more real than it was even under the old system.
I do not know that it is necessary for me to go at any length into the question of group committees and of voluntary workers. The object of these is to fill the place to some extent of the smaller areas which existed under the old system. Where you have a large area sparsely populated, where the distances are too great to expect pensioners to come to the central town, these group committees are set up, which to all intents and purposes have the same powers as the War Pensions Committees. We also are setting up voluntary workers who are to be easily approachable by the pensioner, and who will receive their complaints. In that way I think that the charge that the areas have become too large is one to which the
House need not pay too much attention. The next point that that hon. Member made was that the meetings of these Pensions Committees were controlled by the Minister of Pensions. That is true to some extent, but the object that was kept in mind was clearly stated by my right hon. and gallant Friend when he pointed out that in some places the cost of a single meeting of these committees is as much as £200. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is that"?]

Mr. THOMAS: On a point of Order. Are we entitled or not to have a statement repeated by one Minister from another, without the authority of the particular place, so that we can judge of the accuracy of the statement?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.

Captain CRAIG: I have ascertained that the area referred to is in the North of Scotland.

Mr. STEPHEN: Now we are getting justice for Scotland.

Captain CRAIG: If the hon. Member thinks £200 is too high a figure, I say there arc several areas to which the assembly of the committee would cost as much as £100. I think it is necessary for the Minister to have some control over the meetings of committee. There is no desire on the part of the Minister unduly to restrict the Pensions Committee as to the number of meetings they hold. Objection was taken to individual cases being taken in private. The reason for that is not as stated by Members opposite—that the Ministry have anything to be ashamed of or that it fears any evidence which might be brought to light in these cases. The reason is that many of these cases could not be heard in public. The Committee does not know what the case is to be until it comes before them. There are often contained in these cases facts and allegations which it would not be for the benefit of the pensioner or anybody else that they should come to light, and the balance of justice is all in favour of these cases being heard in private. The next objection taken was that the Committees were not allowed free access to files and papers. Everybody knows that files and documents in Government offices are confidential. [An HON. MEMBER: "Sometimes."]
There are many papers which anybody might read but there are also many of a highly confidential nature, and we submit that it is reasonable for the Ministry to retain control of these papers. If the local officers think fit, I understand that the papers can be produced, hut, just as the Minister should have control of the number of meetings of Committee, we say the Minister should have control over these matters too. I submit that, considering the small number of objections that have been raised, it would be wrong of this House to put the Ministry of Pensions to the inconvenience and delay which would undoubtedly ensue if these Regulations were not approved. An hon. Member asked a question with regard to the revocation of widows' pensions. I think the House will agree that there are conditions and circumstances under which the Ministry should have the right to revoke the pension of a widow. For instance, there might be the case of a widow who has a pension while she is living with a man without being married to him. If a woman becomes a drunkard and is obviously spending every penny of her pension in drink, I think it is proper that power should reside in some authority to administer her pension, or, if need be, to deprive her of it.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: As one of the Members of this House who has on several occasions fallen foul of the Pensions Ministry—in good spirit I hope, except that one feels for the ex-Service men—I want to reinforce and endorse the point of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) that there is a deep-rooted conviction in the minds of the ex-Service men that the Regulations drawn up are mainly for the purpose of curtailing the powers of the committees and making pensions in the aggregate less possible for them and their dependants. If hon. Members on the other side of the House were as candid as we are, they would confess that these pension cases trouble them the same as they trouble us. I think they ought to do so, if they are not paying mere lip service on platforms. I want to say to the Minister that however good the Regulations may have been they have hopelessly broken down. South Wales is one seething mass of discontent. Take the North Glamorgan area. It extends from Aberdare and
Merthyr in the north; Pontypridd is the centre; it goes to the border of Gilfach Goch and Cowbridge in the east, and Caerphilly and Gwaelodygarth on the south—an area each way of at least 16 to 18 miles from the pivotal centre. We were told by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions that the group committees have been formed and the sub-committees have also been formed to take some part of the duties that were done heretofore by the old Pension Committee. The complaint now is that the larger committee, if it is to have its own power to meet at its own time, entails a very large amount of cost. But; why in heaven's name make any change at all from the old method? Why not have left the old Committee? It had a very large number of voluntary workers who were not paid any money for their labour—in some cases they were paid their train fares or their travelling expenses.
Our complaint is that the system is altogether out of touch with the people. In my district I have never addressed a single meeting without at least getting anything from 30 to 40 cases of complaints with regard to their treatment. We are asking that no time should be lost, no delay should take place if we are to abate the grievances of these men. There is no reason at all why something

should not be done to bring these group Committees, if they are to operate and function, not having more power. What is the use of having a group Committee meeting at Merthyr, or at Aberdare, or at Treherbert, or at Cambridge, Gilfach Goch, or Caerphilly with no power to decide in the cases that come before them? We have all these places very far distant and it takes them weeks to get in touch with the pivotal centre at Pontypridd. These people feel that they have really just and good cause of complaint, against the Pensions Ministry in this respect and I do appeal that attention should be given to them. There are, as I have already said to this House, scores upon scores of cases where the area officer the regional director, declares that through the Regulations the aggravation has passed away with regard to these men and in all these cases their pensions disappear. They say, having served the country on the day when required, they are not further considered, and there is nothing for them but either to go to the Poor House or apply for Poor Law relief.

Mr. BALDWIN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 103.

Division No. 37.]
AYES.
[1.25 a.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Chapman, Sir S.
Hawke, John Anthony


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Clayton, G. C.
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Colfox, Major Wm Phillips
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Hood, Sir Joseph


Barnston, Major Harry
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hopkins, John W. W.


Becker, Harry
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Houfton, John Plowright


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Doyle, N. Grattan
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Betterton, Henry B.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hudson, Capt. A.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Ellis, R. G.
Hume, G. H.


Blundell, F. N.
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hurd, Percy A.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian. N.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)


Brass, Captain W.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Jarrett, G. W. S.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Frece, Sir Walter de
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Furness, G. J.
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Bruford, R.
Gould, James C.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Bruton, Sir James
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Lorimer, H. D,


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Lort-Williams, J.


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Lumley, L. R.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Button, H. S.
Hall, Lieut.-Co!. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Manville, Edward


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Halstead, Major D.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Sutcliffe, T.


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Morrison-Bill, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Russell, William (Bolton)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Murchison, C. K.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Nall, Major Joseph
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Tubbs, S. W.


Paget, T. G.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Wallace, Captain E.


Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Shipwright, Captain D.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Pease, William Edwin
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.
Wise, Frederick


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Singleton, J. E.
Wolmer. Viscount


Peto, Basil E.
Skelton, A. N.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Privett, F. J.
Sparkes, H. W.



Raine, W.
Stanley, Lord
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Remer, J. R,
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.


Reynolds, W. G. W.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.



Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)




NOES.


Adams, D.
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Potts, John S.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ritson, J.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Herriotts, J.
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Ammon, Charles George
Hill, A.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Attlee, C. R.
Hirst, G. H.
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Barnes, A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Royce, William Stapleton.


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Salter, Dr. A.


Bonwick, A.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Scrymgeour, E.


Bowdler, W. A.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Broad, F. A.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Bromfield, William
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Brown. James (Ayr and Bute)
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Sullivan, J.


Buckle, J.
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Burgess, S.
Lawson, John James
Tout, W. J.


Cairns, John
Leach, W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cape. Thomas
Lunn, William
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Charleton, H. C.
McLaren, Andrew
Warne, G. H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Duncan, C.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Welsh, J. C.


Dunnico, H.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Westwood, J.


Ede, James Chuter
Maxton, James
Wheatley, J.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Middleton, G.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Fairbairn, R. R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W.


Foot, Isaac
Muir, John W.
Williams, T (York, Don Valley)


Gosling. Harry
Murnin, H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Nichol, Robert
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Greenall, T.
O'Grady, Captain James
Wright, W.


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Oliver, George Harold



Hall, F. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Parker, H. (Hanley)
Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. Griffiths.


Harbord, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Hardie, George D.
Ponsonby, Arthur

Question put accordingly.

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Regulations, dated the 23rd day of January, 1923, made by the Minister of Pensions under the War

Pensions Act, 1921, entitled the War Pensions Committee (General) Regulations, 1923, be annulled."

The House divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 143.

Division No. 38.]
AYES.
[1.33 a.m.


Adams, D.
Buckle, J.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Burgess, S.
Gray, Frank (Oxford)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cairns, John
Greenall, T.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Cape, Thomas
Guthrie, Thomas Maule


Ammon, Charles George
Charleton, H. C.
Hall, F. (York, W. R.. Normanton)


Attlee, C. R.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Barnes, A.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Batey, Joseph
Duncan, C.
Harbord, Arthur


Bonwick, A.
Dunnico, H.
Hardie, George D.


Bowdler, W. A.
Ede, James Chuter
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)


Broad, F. A.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)


Bromfield, William
Fairbairn, R. R.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Foot, Isaac
Herriotts, J.


Buchanan, G.
Gosling, Harry
Hill, A.


Hirst, G. H.
Murnin, H.
Sullivan, J.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Nichol, Robert
Tout, W. J.


Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
O'Grady, Captain James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Oliver, George Harold
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Paling, W.
Warne, G. H.


Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Parker, H. (Hanley)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Welsh, J. C.


Kirkwood, D.
Potts, John S.
Westwood, J.


Lansbury, George
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wheatley. J.


Lawson, John James
Ritson, J.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Leach, W.
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Whiteley, W.


Lunn, William
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Williams, T (York; Don Valley)


McLaren, Andrew
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Royce, William Stapleton
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


March, S.
Salter, Dr. A.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Scrymgeour, E.
Wright, W.


Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)



Maxton, James
Shinwell. Emanuel
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Middleton, G.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. Griffiths.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stephen, Campbell



Muir, John W.




NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Paget, T. G.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Frece, Sir Walter de
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Furness, G. J.
Pease, William Edwin


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Gould, James C.
Peto, Basil E.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Privett, F. J.


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Raine, W.


Barnett. Major Richard W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Remer, J. R.


Barnston, Major Harry
Hall. Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Becker, Harry
Halstead, Major D.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Hawke, John Anthony
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Betterton, Henry B.
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Ruggles-Brise. Major E.


Blundell, F. N.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brass, Captain W.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hood, Sir Joseph
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hopkins, John W. W.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Houfton, John Plowright
Shipwright, Captain D.


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.


Bruford, R.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C, K.
Singleton, J. E.


Bruton, Sir James
Hudson, Capt. A.
Skelton, A. N.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hume. G. H.
Sparkes, H. W.


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Hurd, Percy A.
Stanley, Lord


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth


Button, H. S.
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stuart, Lord c. Crichton-


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Chapman, Sir S.
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Sutcliffe, T.


Clayton, G. C.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lorimer, H. D.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Lort-Williams, J.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Lumley, L. R.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Curzon, Captain Viscount
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Manville, Edward
Tubbs, S. W.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Wallace, Captain E.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Doyle. N. Grattan
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wise, Frederick


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wolmer, Viscount


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Ellis, R. G.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Murchison, C. K.



Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Nail, Major Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

Mr. F. ROBERTS: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the provisional Regulations, dated the 2nd day of February, 1923, made by the Minister of Pensions under the War Pensions Act, 1921, entitled
the War Pensions (Final Awards) Amendment Regulations, 1923, be annulled.
I regret that I feel it necessary still further to detain the House, for the purpose of asking the right hon. Gentleman
if he can give us some explanation as to the framing of the Regulations under this latest Order. The Order points out that the Minister of Pensions, under the Final Awards Amendment Regulations of the War Pensions Act, finds it necessary to certify that in pursuance of Section 2 of the Rules Publications Act, 1893, and on account of urgency, the following Regulation should come into immediate operation, and in pursuance of the powers conferred upon him he forthwith authorises this Provisional Order. No. 1 says that these Regulations may be cited as the War Pensions (Final Awards) Amendment, Regulations, 1923, and shall be read with the War Pensions (Final Awards) Regulations, 1922, hereinafter referred to as the Regulations, 1922. There is a good number of Clauses which propose to delete certain Regulations which are included in the Orders which now operate, and at the end of Regulation I it is proposed to insert
A decision of the Minister includes a decision prior to 13th February, 1917, of the Admiralty or the Army Council under any warrant.
I wonder whether, taking this into consideration, in conjunction with the original Order, this new proposal will not prejudice the claims of a certain number of men. I should be glad if the Minister can remove that apprehension from my mind. At any rate, it does seem to warrant some explanation as to what is the intention of the Minister in making a, proposal of that description. My other question relates to Section 4, where it says at the end of Regulation 8 (3) insert the following:
Provided that where the officer or man has refused to undergo treatment certified to be necessary in his interests regard shall be had to what would have been the probable condition of his disability or his disabilities had he undergone such treatment.
On the face of it that would seem a fairly just regulation to make, but the more you analyse it, the more mischievous you see it is likely to prove in its operation. I know from, personal knowledge there have been cases where men have apparently been fully justified in objecting to accept a course of treatment which has been prescribed. On the other hand, there has been a case, say, of a man who has been through a course of treatment in a particular tuberculosis institution, or has been treated for neurasthenia, who finds on subsequent
consideration that he has come to the conclusion that, rather than the treatment being to his benefit, it has been entirely to his disadvantage, and the man has exercised his own judgment against that of his advisers. Under this proposal it would seem that if a man who in his own considered opinion, and perhaps on the advice of an independent medical roan, comes to the conclusion that the treatment offered to him under this Clause is not acceptable to him, he is likely to be deprived of his pensions right. That seems to me to be an unwarrantable proposal to make, and rather than seeking to protect the man this Clause would work against his best interests, and deny him the freedom, to which he is entitled. I would like to ask the Minister a further question in this connection. What need has there been demonstrated for a regulation of this description? Has there been any grave abuse of the existing system? Has he sufficient justification by the number of cases brought to his personal knowledge for the proposal which is now made? After all, even if it is disabled ex-service men who are now being considered, they have some rights and privileges which ought to be recognised by this House.
Clause 3 suggests that, in order to bring the provisions of these regulations to the notice of officers and men concerned, to whom a grant of a permanent pension or of .a gratuity or a final weekly allowance has been made, before 19th August, 1921, notice of the right of appeal shall be published in three successive issues of the "British Legion," and in six successive issues of the principal daily or weekly newspapers in London or the, provinces, and suitable notice shall be displayed in the local office of the Ministry. I want to know whether the advertising or circulating in selected places is to be in the same form as these regulations have been circulated among us. If so, those concerned will be much like the members of this House—they will have very little realisation of what is under consideration, and they will find some difficulty in discovering what is meant by the publication of this particular order.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to second the Motion.
We on this side of the, House are conscious of the fact that the Pensions Minister has no easy task. To-night
I have used very strong language, and it may be that I have said something that personally affects the Minister. If so, I am very sorry I used those words. I want to say at the same time that there is a growing conviction among those of us who keep as close as we can in touch with the regulations and warrants that we think there is abundant proof for the statement, and for the belief that sooner or later the whole pensions administration is to be turned into a machine where there is to be no criticism and where men are open to be left on the rocks with their dependants suffering So, if we use strong language here, it is as a result of the regulations which we have before us. Take this amending regulation. My hon. Friend who has moved this Motion and myself have gone over these Amendments with the regulations in our hands; and I challenge any gentleman who is a lawyer in this House or anyone who has had working experience of the committees to understand, without a memorandum of explanation, what the additional effect of Regulation 2 would be. That has to be put into the "British Legion" in three successive numbers and in six successive editions of some newspapers in London? What does it mean to the man whose fate and fortune are affected by the Amendment? I confess that it is almost impossible for me to explain the effect of some of these amending regulations. My hon. friend pointed out Section 4 of Clause 2:
At the end of Regulation 8 insert the following: Provided that when the officer or man has refused to undergo treatment certified to be necessary in his interest, regard shall be had to what would have been the probable condition of his disability had he undergone such treatment.
I knew a case of a man who was ill, and living under the care of his parents. He was told he would have to go to the hospital. When he went to the hospital he was told there was nothing but an operation for him. It was felt by everybody who knew him that there was nothing for it but that he would die very soon. The man said "I am not going under an operation." The Pensions Ministry did at that time what this regulation intends doing now. They stopped that man's pension. Ultimately it was restored. The man died shortly afterwards, but the opinion of those in
close touch with the man was that no operation would have saved him. When a man is so far gone he is the best judge in a matter of that kind. When he was dragging out his days worse than if he was an old man he should not have had the additional pain that his dependants were to be robbed of his pension because he would not undergo an operation. That is the full effect of that particular regulation. I think we ought to ask the Pensions Minister to give us an A.B.C. explanation of what these amended regulations mean. I venture to say that if Members knew what they were being asked to assent to without having the amended regulations in their hands, they would be inclined to lose their tempers as some of us have done this morning.

Major TRYON: I am in entire agreement with the hon. Member who has just addressed the House both as to the complexity of the Regulations, which we try to avoid, and as to the great importance of endeavouring to make them as clear as we can. We are sending out a full circular explaining in popular language to local committees and others what these Regulations mean. When I say in popular language, the House will realise that, being bound by an Act of Parliament, we have to use the technical language of the Act in our Regulations, but we shall try to explain them so that anyone can understand.
On the point of a man refusing an operation, I understand no difficulty would ever be made in regard to pensions in the event of a man exercising the natural right which everybody has to refuse a major operation, but I am told in some cases where a very simple thing would have enabled men to use a hand they would not have a small operation performed. I agree this is a provision which should be used with great care, and I think it should only be applied in exceptional circumstances.

Mr. F. ROBERTS: Who would be the deciding authority in this case?

Major TRYON: It would naturally be a medical opinion; it would be bound to be a medical opinion, but it should not be enforced except in exceptional cases.

Mr. ROBERTS: Would it be a medical opinion given through the Ministry of Pensions?

Major TRYON: Naturally, but we would take other opinions into consideration.

Mr. MARCH: If medical opinion was that, an operation should be performed, what would happen?

Major TRYON: I want to make it clear we do not force operations on people. May I say that these Regulations are only carrying out the general policy of final awards. Hon. Members will remember how much the Ministry has been criticised for continually holding medical boards. It is with the object of avoiding constant medical boards that we are bringing out the Regulations, and if this Motion be carried it would be a vote against the principle of final awards and would be regarded as a great disappointment by ex-service men.

Captain HAY: May I ask, for the sake of information and to keep the House right, do I understand final awards mean pensions for life? Is it not the case that these awards may be for a certain number of weeks and then cease?

Major TRYON: There are of course final awards of all kinds. There may be a final decision that the man is not to get any more. There may be an award that a man is to get a small sum for the loss of a finger, for example, paid out to him for a limited number of weeks. There are also final awards based on assessments of 20 per cent. and upwards which are awards of pension for life.
2.0 A.M.
The points which we are seeking to achieve by these regulations are two. The first point is this. We give rights of appeal on final awards to the pensioners. A lot of final awards have already been made. We were anxious not to flood the Appeal Tribunals with a mass of appeals coming in at the same moment at a greater rate than they could be dealt with. Meanwhile the pensions, of course, will be going on. Therefore we take the awards that have been made for some time in blocks and we bring a certain section of pensions within the scope of appeal, then we bring in other sections and so on, releasing them for appeal in turn, so as not to overcrowd the tribunals. A man has the right of a year in which to appeal. The first of the provisions is therefore to bring within the scope of appeal certain groups of pensions
appeals which have been waiting, in order not to overflow and break down the machinery of the tribunal. The second point is simply this. We were taking power—which point has been put forward by the ex-service men—of measuring the assessment not in multiples of 10 per cent. but of 5 per cent., which gives an advantage to the man when he is suffering from two disablements. Therefore, these regulations are merely for carrying out the policy of final awards. If final awards were condemned a number of men who have now got final awards would feel that their pensions were in jeopardy. We desire to push on with them and to put them into the final period settlement and they are being granted at the rate of four thousand a week. We ask the House to support us in pushing on with the final awards which ex-service men of all classes have appealed to the House to grant.

Mr. ADAMSON: There are one or two points that I would like to put to the Minister of Pensions before we dispose of this question. I want to know in Clause 3—the Clause in which the terms of these regulations are to be brought to the notice of officers of the men concerned when a grant of a permanent pension or gratuity of a final weekly allowance or award has been made before August, 1921—whether that covers the case of men who have already had a final award given by the officials of the Ministry who may have been dissatisfied with the final award but had not for some reason or another appealed against it and are outside the prescribed period? Does that mean that their case can be raised under the terms of this alteration of the regulation? I have several cases of that kind, and I believe other Members have had cases of that kind where the man's appeal, if he had waited for more than a year, was refused on the ground that it was outside the prescribed period. The Minister in reply to the criticism of my right hon. Friend the Mover and the Seconder of this Prayer to His Majesty pointed out that if anything was done to hinder the passing of this Amendment to the regulations and thereby held up the granting of a final award it would be a great disappointment to the ex-service men themselves because of the fact that ex-service men were tired of medical boards and of tribunals.
I do not know where the Minister gets his information. But I want to point out that the granting of these final awards is not saving the ex-service men from having to go before the tribunal. I have a number of cases, and have handed them over, where a final award has been made by the officials of the Ministry, and it has meant in the particular instance to which I am referring the cutting down of the pension. The man has been asked to go up for examination with the view of having a final award made in his case. His pension as the result of that examination is cut down from 60 per cent. to 40 per cent. When either he or anyone else acting on his behalf applies to the Ministry for the reason for this cutting down of his pension, he is told that this is the final award of the Ministry, and that if he is not satisfied he must go before the Appeal Tribunal. So that in having this final award made it is not saving the ex-service men from all the anxieties of having to face the tribunal. I agree with the Minister that in cases where a man has reached the stage when he is not likely to improve very much that a final award ought to be made, but in making the final award I want to point out to the Minister that he is not removing the anxiety from the ex-service men so far as having to face the Appeal Courts. One other point. I hope the Minister in issuing this memoranda, of which he has spoken, is going to have it issued in far clearer terms than previous regulations, because, as I pointed out to him on the last occasion that I discussed with him a considerable number of these pensions difficulties, there is not 5 per cent. of the ex-service men who are acquainted with the regulations, and it would not matter if they were published 50 times in the British Legion or in the weekly papers unless there is a plain explanation made that can be understood by the man in the street. I hope this is one of the things that will have the serious attention of the Minister. I think that one of the functions of the Minister is to make these matters so plain that the whole of the ex-service men will understand them. I can assure the Minister of Pensions that the members on these benches are no more anxious to have extra work placed upon them, which
is placed upon them under existing conditions, than are Members in any part of the House. But such is the position at the moment that, unless something of a drastic nature is done by the Ministry of Pensions, we are going to have a state of revolt existing in this country among ex-service men at a very early date. That is the reason why I am saying to the Minister that I do not know where he gets his information as to what ex-service men feel. If I were to tell the Minister across this floor to-night what even officials of the British Legion say to myself and others about the Ministry of Pensions he would begin to have his doubts as to whether he was in close touch with the feelings of ex-service men.

Major TRYON: I meet them constantly.

Mr. ADAMSON: My reply to the Minister is this: So do I. He must get a different expression of opinion from the one I get. It is only a fortnight since we had this matter discussed in the House, and as a result of that discussion I have had communications from all over the United Kingdom and Ireland. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Ministry knows, they have even been coming from Ireland, and that shows the widespread dissatisfaction which exists.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The hon. Gentleman is discussing the Ministry of Pensions, and is rather departing from the particular parts of the regulations.

Mr. ADAMSON: I have no intention of discussing the question of the Ministry of Pensions generally. I am trying to show the great need that exists for these regulations being explained and altered in order to remove the widespread dissatisfaction that exists among ex-service men regarding the treatment they are receiving. I can assure you it is not a matter we want to be continually bringing before the Minister of Pensions and this House, but if the state of matters continues to exist, which we have had for some time, we will have no alternative but to continue to bring this before the Ministry and the House, until we get changes made that will bring to these ex-service men the equity and justice to which we think they are entitled.

Mr. PALING: I would like to refer to the paragraph at the bottom of the leaflet, which says:
Provided that where an officer or mall has refused to undergo treatment, certified to be necessary in his interests, regard shall be had to the probable condition of his disability, or disabilities, had he undergone such treatment.
I view this with alarm. I think this would be putting power into the hands of the pension authority that might be ill-used. I venture to state that most of the Members of this House will always be having cases of hardship or supposed hardship brought to their notice by ex-soldiers of all descriptions in relation to their pensions, and I fear that the majority of these cases will be from soldiers who have been ruled out on the grounds that their disability has not been caused, or has not been exaggerated by the war. Everybody is having scores of these cases brought to his notice. The disability in every case exists. Nobody denies that, but the question comes in as to what it was caused by. In scores and hundreds of these cases the medical fraternity are at absolute variance. I can give cases in my own district where the local doctors who know these men, and have had them under their care for 12 and 20 years, and have even had cases from their boyhood, declare that these disabilities must have been caused by war services, while the medical fraternity responsible under the pension authority have declared otherwise, and I suppose they have the last word. We have here another case in his regulation which appears to be going to the other extreme. There will be no question of the disability, but, the man will be asked to undergo an operation for a certain treatment. Again his doctors and the other doctors may disagree. He will be seen by the other doctors, and they will say it would have had beneficial effects. Again, I suppose, the men under the pension authority will have the last word, and the man, if he does not agree to undergo the operation or treatment, will be liable to have his pension stopped. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Ministry would be very careful in their use of this particular regulation and that it would only apply in very exceptional circumstances. I take it that there will be some circumstances in which it is expected that the Ministry
will be able to apply this regulation; otherwise it would not have been pat down here, and interpolated as it has been into the administration of pensions. Anyone who knows these things could bring hundreds of cases in which pensioners feel that they have been harshly dealt with, and our anxiety is not to give further powers into the hands of the Ministry. I am afraid, if this is put into operation, there will be a similar number of complaints of hardship to the people who come under this as there has been regarding those people who come under other regulations. I hope the House will see its way to reject this altogether.

Mr. HARBORD: The Minister of Pensions has said quite clearly that there is a desire on the part of ex-service men to have their pensions finally settled. That may be so in extreme cases in which there is certainty about them. In many of them, however, if there is too ready settlement, grave injustices will be created. This week three cases have come under my knowledge. One of them is a mental case, a man I knew before the war, and there was no insanity in the family. The man suffered from shell shock while serving in France. The final settlement in that case would have been on the terms of 50 per cent. I had the honour of representing that man before one who came down on behalf of the Regional Committee. I can speak of the man from my personal knowledge, and that man has had his disability allowance increased to 100 per cent. I can quite conceive, however, of many men who by long exposure in the service of their country have acquired serious complaints or illnesses which after the time these final settlements are arrived at, may become aggravated, and their conditions become very much worse. In some cases they are compelled to except poor relief, a thing which is quite foreign to what was promised them during the War when every one said that their service and sufferings would be recognised. Unfortunately every one of us, irrespective of party, can say from personal knowledge that much injustice has been done to many deserving cases. I regret more than anything that during the Debate to-night there was a lack of sympathy on the part of the Pensions Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot go back to the earlier Debates.

Mr. HARBORD: I bow to your ruling, but I have noticed what I have said during this Debate, and I am sorry for it. I have some right to speak for ex-service men. I am president of the British Legion of my town, whose members sent me to this House. I am a member of a pensions committee and a member of a regional committee. I am sorry that there should he this failure on the part of the pensions committee to realise the sad state of these men.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: As Mr. Speaker has pointed out, the proper time for criticisms of this kind is on the Vote for the Pensions Ministry The only question before the House now is certain specific changes in the Regulations as to final awards. The Debate is solely with reference to these, and it is not permissible to go beyond that question.

Mr. HARBORD: I am sorry that you rule so tightly in this matter. It does not give me the latitude that I would like. In the circumstances I will adopt your suggestion, and .at a later stage I shall refer to the charges.

Mr. WRIGHT: Unless you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, rule me out of order, I want to bring the attention of the House to a very sad case of an officer, and to read an extract from a letter of his with regard to the very great hardship inflicted upon three men who served under him. I brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of Pensions, and was treated with very great courtesy. I only briefly refer to it. The writer says:
It seems a very sad state of affairs that a disabled officer can be treated as I have been during the time that I was totally incapacitated. It really makes me feel for the men who have told me their tale of woe, about how they have been treated by the Ministry of Pensions. Three men who served under me tell me they were in hospital for months undergoing operations and they had credits one of £23, another of £19 and a third of over £15.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: How does the hon. Member connect these cases with the Regulations?

Mr. WRIGHT: As an instance of many of the hardships suffered.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot, on this occasion, quote
cases of hardship unless they have a direct bearing on the Regulations.

Mr. WRIGHT: I want to show the necessity for change.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member can connect his cases with the Regulations. I shall be glad.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: On a point of Order. If the hon. Member can show, by the case he is quoting, that any of these Regulations would bear still more harshly on the unfit, would that not be in order?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Yes, that would be in order.

Mr. LANSBURY: Would it not be in order to suggest new Regulations in place of these?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No.

Mr. WRIGHT: This officer says:
These men were turned out of hospital without receiving a penny of their credits and not even a warrant home. I wrote to the regional headquarters about the money and got the following reply which is not true. 
That is the evidence of an officer who served many years in the Army, and I think it is typical of quite a number, and surely it is obvious that some change is necessary so that men should not be treated in such a harsh manner.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not really in order.

Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: We listened with a certain degree of satisfaction to the statement of the Minister that there were to be published certain simple memoranda to enable ex-service men to understand these amended Regulations, but I think it will be admitted that before the Regulations pass the House Members ought to be given a little more information as to what is their real meaning. For instance, it is said:
At the end of Regulation 2 insert the following: The decision of the Minister includes a decision prior to 15th February, 1917, of the Admiralty or of the Army Council under any warrant.' 
At that time the Pensions Ministry was not established, or at least it was only in a very small and nebulous condition, and the decisions of the Admiralty or the Army Council previous to that date have no relevance to the conditions existing to-day. I remember very well the inception
of the Pensions Ministry. Then all parts of the House, irrespective of party, pressed on the Government of the day the necessity of gathering together the tangled skeins and establishing a Ministry. I am not questioning the Regulation itself, but before it passes we have a right to know what is its real effect. That la decision of the Admiralty prior to 15th February, 1917, or of the Army Council under any warrant shall be binding to-day seems extraordinary when the conditions are as far removed as the poles asunder. We have a right to more information upon that point.
But that does not relieve him of the duty of giving us some more information than has yet been given on this point. I would like to refer to Sub-section 4 of Regulation 2, which deals with cases where an officer or man has refused to undergo treatment certified to be necessary in his interest. Many hon. Gentlemen in this House have a good knowledge of the law of Workmen's Compensation. Under that law, no injured workman is compelled to undergo an operation, but medical men o f the highest capacity disagree with each other. When doctors differ who shall decide? Really, there must be a competent authority to whom an ex-soldier may appeal when his may very well be a case in which his own medical man, or the med leaf man in the service of the Ministry, may disagree as to whether such treatment was or was not proper in his case. The condition of ex-service men differs tremendously. It is certainly necessary if possible to amend the Regulations. It is surely desirable that there should be a right of appeal to a final authority, so that that degree of assurance shall be given to the ex-soldier which a workman possesses under Workmen's Compensation law. Regulation 15 (4) says:
For final statutory award substitute statutory final award.' 
In the early Christian Church there was a long-sustained argument as to the difference between consubstantiation and transubstantiation. Will the Pensions Minister tell a poor unlearned Labour Member the difference between final statutory award and statutory final award? There is another point in Section 3. In my experience, which has not been very great, I have found that where there has been a lapse of time within which an
appeal should have been made, this has deprived ex-service men of the right of appeal. It is therefore very desirable that the conditions as to the time under which an appeal can be made should be clarified. May I read the last four lines of Section 3:
The appeal shall be published in three successive issues of the 'British Legion,' and in six successive issues of the principal daily or weekly newspapers circulating in London or the provinces.
There are two conditions there, or rather two classes of newspapers in which you can publish the notice. In the case of a daily paper the whole period to be brought to the notice of the appellant is a week. The Ministry may say that they had complied with the Section because they bad published in six successive issues of a daily paper, and as from that time the man's right to appeal is exerciseable and within twelve months of that date his right of appeal lapses. The Ministry may publish in six weekly issues, and in that case the period of appeal will be different. There may surely be such a confusion as to baffle the ex-service man, because in one case it is six weeks and in the other six days. I do not know if a great deal hangs upon that, but I think it is a point that should be cleared up.

Captain CRAIG: I propose to clear up a few of the questions put to my right hon. Friend. With regard to the ambiguity in the names of these awards, as to the difference between a statutory final award and a final statutory award, there is no difference. Unfortunately in some old Regulations the expression "statutory final award" was used in some-Clauses, and in another Clause in the same document the expression "final statutory award" was used. It is to cover these two cases that this amendment has been made. In future we will stick to statutory final award.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. May I ask whether, if this phrase mesmerises the hon. Member who has just spoken, is it not used to mislead the ex-soldier?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The mesmerising of any hon. Member is not a point of Order.

Captain CRAIG: The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Harbord), who has just resumed his seat, raised the question of
finality of pensions. I would like to remind the House that that question was gone into very fully two years ago, when the Act of 1921 was passed, and it is not open to us to raise it to-night. The Act of 1921 deals directly with the making final of as many pensions as possible, and it is in pursuance of the policy that was laid down in the Act, and agreed to by the House of Commons that these Regulations are framed. Objection has been taken to Clause 2, Sub-clause (4)— the question of a man refusing to undergo treatment certified to be necessary. If the Ministry of Pensions desired to do so, it could inflict very great hardships under that Clause. It has no such desire. If we do not protect ourselves by some such Regulation as this the Ministry and the public are liable to be imposed upon.
Here is a case to illustrate the question. A man had sustained a small injury to his hand which had resulted in the contraction of the muscles of one finger. So long as the muscles were so contracted the whole hand was useless. It was clear that a slight operation to the muscles would remove this and make the man's hand entirely effective.

Mr. THOMAS: Supposing the individual and the medical adviser advised against an operation and the Ministry's medical adviser suggested an operation—the man has more faith in his own private adviser—would not this Regulation, because he did not comply with the Ministry's instructions, prevent a pension?

Captain CRAIG: That is a question which I do not think I can answer. This provision has been put into the Regulations for the protection of the Ministry. I cannot conceive that a man's doctor would advise against such an operation, but if the man's own doctor did so, and if he was a doctor of repute, I am quite sure the Ministry's doctor would take that into consideration.

Mr. THOMAS: The right hon. Gentleman says he cannot conceive the circumstances of a man's private doctor so advising. It is in our every day experience. I deal with thousands of eases; I have had thousands of these cases come into our own organisation where there is a
dispute between two medical men. In this case I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that there is a dispute between two medical men—one is conversant with the details of the case and in whom the individual has confidence and he takes the advice against the Ministry's. The answer we get is, we must protect ourselves. What we are doing is to try to protect the man.

Captain CRAIG: It is very difficult, as I think everyone will agree, to give a definite answer to that. I feel convinced that the Ministry's doctor would not operate on a man if the man's own doctor objected. But I would point out to hon. Members opposite there is no finality about the matter, because if the man is dissatisfied with the final award he has received, and if that award was made lower on account of his refusal to be operated on or to be treated, he has the Appeal Tribunal to go to, and if the Tribunal thought the Ministry had acted wrongly in the matter they would raise his pension.

Mr. F. ROBERTS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Appeal Tribunal would not have to take into consideration this very Regulation which the Ministry wants to accept.?

Captain CRAIG: I do not think the Regulation will bind the Appeal Tribunal in all respects. They take the opinion of the man's own doctor into consideration, if such is available, and also that of the Ministry doctors.

Mr. ROBERTS: I asked, would they not have to take it into consideration?

Captain CRAIG: My right hon. Friend authorises me to say that we would not insist, if the man's doctor said the operation should not take place.

Mr. THOMAS: That is the most important point. What guarantee has this House that the mere statement of a Minister is to be taken against the Regulation. We are here dealing with the Regulations. No one would question that my right hon. Friend would carry out what he has promised. But we all know perfectly well that he may be superseded by someone else, and we are now dealing with the instructions. If that is the intention of the Ministry, why not accept
our Amendment to alter the Regulations accordingly?

Captain CRAIG: My answer to that is that the interests of a pensioner are protected by the Appeal Tribunal set up by the House of Commons and I do not believe there is any general objection to it. There is only one other question so far as I can remember that has been raised, that is the question of giving due publicity to these Regulations. My right hon. Friend has said that everything will be done to make them as public as possible, because it is as much to our interest as it is to the pensioner's interest to do so. I think the publicity which is proposed under the amended Regulations will have that effect. But it is also the intention of the Ministry to take every opportunity when issuing forms and so on to frame them as clearly as possible. I think these are the only points to which I was asked to reply.

Mr. WALSH: What is the meaning of the first part of the Regulation?

Captain CRAIG: I admit it is difficult to understand exactly, and as a matter of fact I have had it put down in writing so as to make it as clear as possible. The object is
to bring within the scope of the Regulations those awards which were made final by the War Pensions Act, 1921, but a portion of which were deliberately left out of the Regulation of last year in order not to overwhelm the Tribunals of Appeal. The Act of 1921 in Section 4 (4) said that all awards made before the date of the passing of the Act, so far as they were not conditional awards, should be made final and appealable. But it left the Ministry to determine the date or dares as from which they should be appealable. In order not to break the machine and it the interests of disabled ex-service men themselves, the Regulations of last sear were so drawn as to bring immediately within the scope of appeal, only the earlier of these awards, viz.; those made before the 31st March, 1919. This was directly in the interests of disabled men, because it enabled cases, which were excluded from the Regulations to continue to came to the Ministry and get increased pension and allowance if they became worse. The amending Regulations now make these final and appealable for a year as from the 7th February.

Mr. MACLEAN: I should like to ask the Minister of Pensions whether these Regulations apply to Scotland? I desire your ruling, Mr. Speaker, in regard to that. These Regulations are also draft Regulations for the purposes of the Rules
Publication Act, 1893, and Section 1 of that Act says—
This Section shall not apply to Scotland.
I am asking whether these Regulations apply to Scotland, since the Section of the Act says that it shall not apply to Scotland.

Mr. SPEAKER: The notice at the head of the White Paper is not part of the Regulations. It is only for the guidance of Members, and does not in any way affect the Regulations.

Mr. MACLEAN: My point is this. The right hon. Gentleman states that they are draft Regulations for the purposes of Section 1. They are brought within the purpose or scope of Section 1 of the Rules Publication Act, which states specifically that that Section does not apply to Scotland. If these are brought in for the purposes of Section 1, then these Regulations cannot apply to Scotland.

Mr. SPEAKER: As I said before, the hon. Member has quoted from the note at the head of the White Paper, but the Regulations made by the Minister can by themselves apply.

Mr. MACLEAN: While this note is not part of the Regulations, it states that the Regulations are draft Regulations for the purposes of Section 1. It is stated in Section 1 that it shall not apply to Scotland and, therefore, as the purpose here is under Section 1, it follows logically that they cannot apply to Scotland.

Mr. SPEAKER: If that were the case, I should think the hon. Gentleman would be rather pleased.

Mr. THOMAS: The question was put as to whether the Regulations did apply to Scotland. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) said to the Minister: "What is your intention with regard to this matter"? and he said: "So far as we are concerned we intend these to apply to Scotland." My hon. Friend now raises a point of Order and you say, Mr. Speaker, that he is probably pleased that they do not.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must not be taken to say that. I am taking the hon. Member's own hypothesis. My ruling is that this note has not a legislative or statutory effect at all.

Mr. MACLEAN: While it has not legislative effect, it refers to an Act which has legislative effect. I am submitting that part of that Section does not apply to Scotland. If this is brought in under the purposes of Section 1, then it cannot apply. I think you will see my point.

Captain CRAIG: These are draft regulations, and these draft regulations have to be made in accordance with the Rules Publication. Act, but when they become Regulations they apply to Scotland and every part of the world in which pensioners live.

Mr. SPEAKER: This is a legal question which does not concern the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS: Does not that raise the difficulty of discussing at this time in the morning something which is vitally important to thousands of pensioners in this country? Here is a clear admission, and, on a point of order, it is ruled out. It is clearly an important legal point under which the individual may suffer.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman put something into my mouth which I did not say. To the question the Minister has given his answer.

Mr. THOMAS: I am not challenging your position, Sir. I am pointing out to the House the difficulty we are experiencing on this point when we are endeavouring to make these Regulations for the ex-service men as satisfactory as possible. We have now a difference of opinion as to the application of these Regulations to Scotland. In view of these difficulties at this time in the morning I beg to move "That the debate be adjourned."

Mr. SPEAKER: I am sorry that I cannot accept the Motion.

Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. and gallant gentleman opposite has stated that these are draft Regulations and that until they become operative, and until passed by this House, they must be brought in under the Act of 1893. He admits bringing them in under that Act, Section I of which governs draft Regulations. I have shown that Section is not operative in Scotland and you, Sir, have stated that that is not a question on which you can rule as a point of order. It is really a point of honour for the Ministry. It is really a legal point, and being a legal point the position that will arise from it
in Scotand is that ex-service men ear, if they like, take a case into Court because it has been decided against them under these Regulations.
3.0 A.M.
They can bring a case at law against the Pensions Ministry on the ground that these Regulations are not operative in Scotland.

Captain CRAIG: Has the hon. Member observed the word "also" before the words "draft, Regulations"—
These Regulations are also draft Regulations for the purpose of Section 1 of the Rules Publications Act, 1893.
That makes all the difference.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am sure I took every word into my mind when reading the Regulations. I am aware it says—
These Regulations are also draft Regulations "—
but does the hon. Member suggest that, because the word "also" is there, it excludes the Regulations from the operation of Section 1 of the Act of 1893?

Captain CRAIG: They come under it.

Mr. MACLEAN: What is the use of quibbling?

Captain CRAIG: They do two things. They come under these Regulations and, so far as Scotland is concerned, they do not need to come under them and they do not come under them.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I take it that they come under this particular section of the Act so far as it affects England, but so far as it affects Scotland they do not? What Act do they come under?

Captain CRAIG: They do not require to come under any Act.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Send for the Attorney-General.

Mr. MACLEAN: I want to put this point—

Major TYRON: I have not the least doubt that these Regulations do apply to Scotland and England. The word "also" shows that
The Minister of Pensions certifies, in pursuance of Section 2 of the Rules Publication Act.
There is not the least doubt that this applies, not only to Scotland and England, not only under the 1893 Act, but also
under the Act of 1921, which clearly applies to Scotland.

Mr. MACLEAN: The Act of 1921, which applies to England, does not apply to Scotland, and you have been operating it all the time in Scotland.

Major TRYON: The hon. member is entirely mistaken. The Act of 1921 clearly applies to Scotland and to England.

Mr. MACLEAN: In that case the Act of 1921 applies to the whole country, and it is quite unnecessary to refer these Regulations to the Act of 1893. I submit that a point of this nature is exceedingly complicated, as is shown by the fact that two members in charge of the Regulations cannot make the point clear, but contradict each other, and not only contradict each other but tell us at one moment that these Regulations do not require to come under the 1893 Act, and at the next moment tell us they do for one part of the country.

Captain CRAIG: We never said that.

Mr. MACLEAN: The statement was distinctly made from that side that the Act of 1921 specifically applied to Scotland, Wales and England. Yet to-day we find that the Regulations are brought in under a particular Section of the Act of 1893, and you tell us that that is only for England and does not apply to Scotland. That shows that whoever is responsible for the drafting of these Regulations did not know what was intended. I suggest that at this time when there is so much difference of opinion between two Ministers the Debate should be adjourned and I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Mr. SPEAKER: I have already said I cannot accept that Motion.

Captain HAY: It seems a strange thing that at three o'clock in the morning we find a large company of people assembled, each one of whom will tell you separately and individually that he is anxious to confer the largest benefits possible upon the disabled ex-service men, and yet somehow when they come into conclave we find that this power which is so strong and burning in the individual bosom seems to lose all its strength when we get together. Surely it is a strange thing that we have to have
Act upon Act and Regulation upon Regulation in order that we may do very simple acts of justice which are still waiting to be done. I would like to add my testimony to what has been said that ex-service men do not want final awards. They may want final pensions, which is a different story, but a final award is chased after by no ex-service man, because he realised that it may be anything from 18 up to 100 weeks at a low percentage, and afterwards he will have no claim on the Minister. I am still not clear as to what the position is after I have had the explanation of the Under-Secretary, and I want again to draw the attention of the House to paragraph 2 of Section 4:
At the end of Section B3 insert the following: 'Provided that where the officer or man has refused to undergo treatment certified to be necessary in his interests regard shall be had to what would have been the probable condition of his disability or disabilities had he undergone such treatment.' 
We know quite well that when ex-service men refuse further operations they do not refuse for a small matter, and when ex-service men refuse further operations it is only after four or five severe operations have either given them no relief or have made their cases worse. It is in these circumstances that we find an ex-service man putting his back up and saying "No more operations" or "No more doctors for me." I wish to ask a categorical question. Am I to understand after having heard the representatives of the Government, and especially after having heard the Under-Secretary explain this paragraph 2, Subsection (4), that the Government say that where an ex-service man upon medical advice refuses further operations and has his assessment thereby lowered and comes before a Court of Appeal, the Government, in making its case against him, will be precluded from bringing in evidence that this man has refused further operations? I understand that that is the state of matters under the pledge of the Under-Secretary, but this is of such vast importance to ex-service men that I raise the point again in the hope that the Pensions Minister will deal with it and let us know clearly what the understanding is on the matter.
I think I voice the sentiments of tens of thousands of ex-service men who will see that these War Pensions Amendments
Regulations have been conceived with the one aim. We understand that the saving on pensions for next year is to be something like £10,000,000, and the two things we have discussed to-night are the small Geddes' axes which are to produce that saving. Ex-service men to-morrow will read with horror and disgust that one more sword is to fall again on those who are too weak to defend themselves, and the disabled men of this country form one of those classes. I wish again to put my question categorically to the Government: Are we to understand that where an ex-service man refuses an operation upon the advice of his own medical man that, when his assessment is lowered and he goes before the appeal tribunal, the Government will be precluded from bringing against him the fact that he refused an operation?

Mr. HARDIE: I want to know if it is in order to discuss Regulations that have not a clear application to certain cases?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think it is.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it in order to discuss Regulations that specifically state a certain Act and yet assume these Regulations to apply to a country to which the Act does not apply?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have already dealt with that question. This is simply a note for the assistance of Members to show them what rights they have in moving an Address to the Crown in either House of Parliament.

Mr. HARDIE: In the case of the passing of these Amendments, will that be altered to show that it applies to England and not to Scotland?

Mr. MAXTON: May we take it there is a possibility of these Regulations being annulled for England, but no possibility of their being annulled if they apply to Scotland?

Mr. SPEAKER: If this Motion be carried they will be annulled altogether.

Mr. SHINWELL: I have listened expectantly to this Debate in the hope that the Minister of Pensions would be able to clear away some ambiguities about these Regulations. I confess to a profound disappointment. Far from enlightening Members with regard to the object and
intentions of the Regulations we have become somewhat more confused. If there is any justification for the speeches made on this side of the House, and for the charges levelled against the Ministry of Pensions and the whole administration, that justification would be found in the speech just delivered by the Under-Secretary for the Department. We have had a flagrant example of ambiguity when reference was made to two very peculiar and specific phrases in the Regulation now under discussion. First of all, we had the phrase "final statutory award," followed by "statutory final award." I submit to the House that the very fact that these phrases are embodied in these Regulations has justified all we have said about the ambiguity of the Regulations themselves. What possible justification can there be for having ambiguous phrases of that kind running through the Regulations? What substantial defence can the Minister or Under-Secretary submit in defence of these phrases? All the Under-Secretary can say is that one of the phrases is a relic of an old Regulation and should not have been before the House at all. That admission reflected very little credit on those responsible for drafting the Regulation. Not only do we charge the Department and those responsible for this Regulation with ambiguity, but when we consider the discussion that has taken place with regard to whether Scotland ought to be included or excluded from this Regulation, we find from the lack of enlightenment which exists on this point that the Regulations are far from being what they ought to be.
Only the other day we had a lecture from a gentleman, for whose legal learning we have very great respect, on the absolute need for clarity in Regulations of this kind and in Bills coming before this House. We have a Committee sitting upstairs almost in the throes of despair trying to extricate itself from legal difficulties set up by legislation for which this House is not responsible, but for which it is now to become responsible, and we want no repetition of that sort of thing. We must be quite clear in regard to the Regulations before us, and I hope that we on these benches will receive undivided support from Members opposite when we demand
clarity in all Regulations submitted by the Pensions Department. The men who are to be recipients of pensions themselves are not deeply versed in the technical terminology of the Ministry of Pensions or of any other Government Department, and they are entitled to understand what exactly is in the mind of the Minister and what are his intentions Not only does that apply to ex-service men, but it applies to the medical faculty. I want to turn to an aspect of this matter which is extremely important. I refer to a question which arises in this Regulation and which relates to operations which ex-service men are expected to undergo. I submit to the Minister that compulsory operation will run counter to British sentiment. To ask ex-service men who have suffered very great hardship, to say the least of it—to ask such persons to submit to compulsory operation and not to be permitted to exercise their own opinion on a matter of such importance to themselves, but simply to do as they are told, and particularly when they have the support, perhaps, of their own medical practitioner, and whose opinion may be opposed to that expressed by the medical man who acts for the Department, is surely asking too much.
I submit that the dictatorial attitude, which I am sorry to observe the Ministry of Pensions is adopting—in other words, to say to the ex-service man "stand and deliver," either you undergo an operation at our request, or forfeit all right to a pension, is an outrage on ex-service men who are in that unfortunate and appalling position. I would go further and say that the argument—I use the term argument for purposes of discussion although I fad to see the force of the statement made—the argument which the Minister used in support or in extenuation of the conduct which is behind such a proposal seems to me to be most fallacious. What he said was this. He said, of course, a man has always the right to appeal to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. I am afraid that is very small solace to a man who is in such a position. If I may say so, the Pensions Appeal Tribunals to-day are the graveyards of the hopes of many ex-service men. At all events, if communications which have been forwarded to me in very large numbers are any indication, that is certainly the position, and I say that I reflect the opinion of a very
large number of ex-service men in my own constituency in Scotland when I say that they do not look upon the Pensions Appeal Tribunal with equanimity, to say the least of it. To say to these men you have always the right to appeal to this tribunal—which is set up by warrant, I agree—to ask the men to do this is, I think, to go just a little too far, and it is certainly not consoling to the men themselves.
I rose particularly for the purpose of asking the Minister and those associated with him and Members on the other side, to support our appeal for clearness in Regulations which are intended, for the use of those who have to administer Pensions. I do not speak without knowledge on this matter. If I may say so, I have been a member of the Glasgow War Pensions Committee, and I have been Chairman of the Govan Pensions Committee and a member of the South West of Scotland Disablement Committee, and I know something of the trials and tribulations of those who are associated with Pensions Committees. May I say on that point that, just immediately after my resignation from the Glasgow War Pensions Committee, we had a most unfortunate occurrence there when the Ministry took out of the hands of a very enlightened, a very progressive and, if I may say so, a very hard-working Pensions Committee, a very earnest body of men and women, powers, not altogether unlimited powers, but very useful powers which were always used in the interests of the men who came before them seeking relief. That was by no means the right kind of thing to do and I know it was deeply and bitterly resented not merely by the war pensions committee in Glasgow, but by the citizens themselves. Indeed, the Glasgow Town Council—a body with which I was then associated—very indignantly resented the attitude of the Minister.
When I was a member of that Committee I know from my own experience how difficult it was to interpret Regulations which were included in the various Acts and Orders emanating from the precincts of the Ministry of Pensions from time to time. How much more difficult must it be for the ex-service man who prior to the War was in very humble circumstances, perhaps, with very little education and who consequently was unable to understand Regulations. There—
fore I do appeal most sincerely, because I do not think we ought to make party capital out of a thing of this sort, for the consideration which we are entitled to expect. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]

Mr. MAXTON: It shows they are awake.

Mr. SHINWELL: Although we have been accused not merely in this Debate but in preceding Debates, I am sorry to have to make reference to the view that we try to make party capital out of the ex-service man and the ex-service man's suffering. Although we come under the lash of Members opposite in that connection, I would reply by saying this. There is a very simple expedient for removing this question from within the four corners of partisanship or party politics, and that is for the Minister with the support and influence of hon. Members and right hon. Members opposite to relieve the sufferings of ex-service men, and make it unnecessary for Members on these benches to make these constant appeals to the Minister and his Department. I would say further and these are my final words—I am sorry for detaining the House at such length—I would say that we are entitled to make party capital even

out of this question of the sufferings of ex-service men so long as hon. and right hon. Members opposite, who pledged themselves to obtain relief of the proper kind for ex-service men and their dependants, fail to implement their promises and obligations, and we on these benches without having made any promises to ex-service men other than securing for them a measure of justice, can come quite properly to this House and ask from the Minister and his associates for some measure of relief for many of our own constituents. At all events. I do ask, on the wider ground of the need for securing for ex-service men and their dependants the greatest possible measure of relief within the four corners of Acts of. Parliament intended for the benefit of ex-service men and their dependants, for such Regulations as can be easily interpreted and clearly understood beyond all possible ambiguity.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridgeman) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 133; Noes 92.

Division No. 39.]
AYES
[3.33 a.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Hume, G. H.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hurd, Percy A.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Jarrett, G. W. S.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Elliot, Capt. Waiter E. (Lanark)
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Ellis, R. G.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Barnett, Major Richard W.
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Lloyd-Greame. Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Barnston, Major Harry
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lorimer, H. D.


Becker, Harry
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Botton M.
Lumley, L. R.


Bell, Lieut. Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Frece, Sir Walter de
Manville, Edward


Betterton, Henry B.
Furness, G. J.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Blundell, F. N.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)


Brass, Captain W.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Murchison, C. K.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nall, Major Joseph


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Halstead, Major D.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Paget, T. G.


Bruford, R.
Hawke, John Anthony
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Bruton, Sir James
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Pease, William Edwin


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Peto, Basil E


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Privett, F. J.


Button, H. S.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Raine, W.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Remer, J, R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hood, Sir Joseph
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Clayton, G. C.
Houfton, John Plowright
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hudson, Capt. A.
Russell, William (Bolton)


Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Stanley, Lord
Wallace, Captain E.


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Wise, Frederick


Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Stuart, Lord C, Crichton
Wolmer, Viscount


Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Shipwright, Captain D.
Sutcliffe. T.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H,



Singleton, J. E.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
TELLERS TOR THE AYES.—


Skelton, A. N.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.


Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Titchfield, Marquess of



Sparkes, H. W.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement



NOES.


Adams, D.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, W.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Potts, John S.


Attlee, C. B.
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-Is-Spring)


Barnes, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Ritson, J.


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Bonwick, A.
Herriotts, J.
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Bowdler, W. A.
Hill, A.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Shinwell, Emanuel


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Buchanan, G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stephen, Campbell


Buckle. J.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Sullivan, J.


Burgess, S.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cairns John
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon]
Tout, W. J.


Cape, Thomas
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, George
Warne, G. H.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lawson, John James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duncan, C.
Leach, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
McLaren, Andrew
Welsh, J C.


Ede, James Chuter
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Westwood, J.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)
March, S.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Fairbairn, R. R.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Whiteley, W.


Foot, Isaac
Maxton, James
Williams, T (York, Don Valley)


Gosling, Harry
Middleton, G.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Muir, John W.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Greenall, T.
Murnin, H.
Wright, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)



Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Nichol, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Oliver, George Harold
Mr. Ammon and Mr. Lunn.

Question put accordingly

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the provisional Regulations, dated the 2nd day of February, 1923, made by the Minister of Pensions

under The War Pensions Act, 1921, entitled the War Pensions (Final Awards) Amendment Regulations, 1923, be annulled."

The House divided: Ayes, 93; Noes, 134.

Division No. 40.]
AYES.
[3.40 a.m.


Adams, D.
Gray, Frank (Oxford)
March, S.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Greenall, T.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Middleton, G.


Attlee, C. R.
Hall, F. (York, W. R. Normanton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Barnes, A.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Muir, John W.


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Murnin, H.


Bonwick, A.
Hardie, George D.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)


Bowdler, W. A.
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Nichol, Robert


Broad, F. A.
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Oliver, George Harold


Brown. James (Ayr and Bute)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Paling, W.


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Buckle, J.
Herriotts, J.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Burgess, S.
Hill, A.
Potts, John S.


Cairns, John
Hirst, G. H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Ritson, J.


Charleton, H. C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Duncan, C.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Dunnico, H.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Ede, James Chuter
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, Campbell


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lansbury, George
Sullivan, J.


Fairbairn, R. R.
Lawson, John James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Foot, Isaac
Leach, W.
Tout, W. J.


Gosling, Harry
McLaren, Andrew
Wallhead, Richard C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Warne, G. H.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.);
Wood, Major M. M. {Aberdeen, C.)


Watson, w. M. (Dunfermline)
Whiteley, W.
Wright, W.


Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)



Welsh, J. C.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercllfle)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Westwood, J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Mr. Ammon and Mr. Lunn.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Paget, T. G.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Frece, Sir Walter de
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Furness, G. J.
Pease, William Edwin


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Goff, Sir R. Park
Peto, Basil E.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Privett, F. J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Raine, W.


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Remer, J. R.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Barnston, Major Harry
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Becker, Harry
Halstead, Major D.
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)


Bell, Lieut.-Col W C. H. (Devizes)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Hawke, John Anthony
Roundel!, Colonel R. F.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Blundell, F. N.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Brass, Captain W.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hood, Sir Joseph
Shipwright, Captain D.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hopkins, John W. W.
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Houtton, John Plowright
Singleton, J. E.


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Skelton, A. N.


Bruford, R.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Bruton, Sir James
Hudson, Capt. A.
Sparkes, H. W.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hume, G. H.
Stanley, Lord


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Hurd, Percy A.
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Button, H. S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Chamberlan, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Sutcliffe, T.


Chapman, Sir S.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Clayton, G. C.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lorimer, H. D.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Colfox, Major Win. Phillips
Lumley, L. R.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Manville, Edward
Wallace, Captain E.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wise, Frederick


Doyle, N. Grattan
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wolmer, Viscount


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Ellis, R. G.
Murchison, C. K.



England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Nail, Major Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr.
SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twelve minutes before Four o'clock a.m.